1 


-  ..  ;  - '  .  •  :  : 

■  •.  ■  '  ; 


■ 


\ 


,  :r  « 


♦ 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH, 


€i)t  jfatfterS  for  ®njjlts&  Readers. 


THE 

DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH 

OR, 

THE  CHRISTIAN  APOLOGISTS  OF  THE 
SECOND  AND  THIRD  CENTURIES. 


BY 

THE  REV.  F.  WATSON,  M.A., F 

LATE  FELLOW  AND  THEOLOGICAL  LECTURER  OF  ST.  JOHN’S  COLLEGE, 
CAMBRIDGE,  AND  RECTOR  OF  STARSTON,  NORFOLK. 


PUBLISHED  UNDER  THE  DIRECTION  OF  THE  TRACT  COMMITTEE. 

BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 

LONDON: 

SOCIETY  FOR  PROMOTING  CHRISTIAN  KNOWLEDGE, 

NORTHUMBERLAND  AVENUE,  CHARING  CROSS,  W.C. ; 

43,  QUEEN  VICTORIA  STREET,  E.C. 

BRIGHTON :  135,  north  street. 

New  Yohk  :  E.  &  J.  B.  YOUNG  &  CO. 


■ 


PREFACE, 


The  aim  of  this  book  has  been  to  combine  together, 
in  a  connected  form,  and  in  a  graphic  manner,  the 
main  points  of  the  arguments  urged  on  behalf  of  the 
Christians  by  the  numerous  Apologists  of  the  second 
and  third  centuries.  Their  writings  have  a  con¬ 
siderable  interest  and  importance  for  us,  for  it  is 
from  them  we  learn  the  moral  and  religious  con¬ 
dition  of  the  world  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord. 
They  picture  to  us  the  faith,  and  hope,  and  patient 
endurance  of  the  early  Christians.  In  their  time 
the  Church  and  the  world  were  open  enemies,  and 
they  describe  the  bitter  struggle  which  ended  in  the 
victory  of  the  Church. 

There  is  little  in  this  book  which  has  not  been 
derived  from  the  works  of  the  Apologists  themselves, 
and  the  Ecclesiastical  History  of  Eusebius ;  but  the 
author  has  also  to  express  his  obligations  to  the 
following  books  : — 

Dollinger’s  ‘Jew  and  Gentile  in  the  Court  of 
Christ.’ 

Lecky’s  ‘  European  Morals.’ 

Blunt’s  ‘  History  of  the  First  Three  Centuries.’ 


- - 


VI  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

Westcott’s  ‘  History  of  the  Canon  of  the  New 
Testament.’ 

Neander’s  ‘  History  of  the  Christian  Church.’ 
(The  references  are  to  Bohn’s  edition.) 

It  must  also  be  stated  that  the  translations  of  the 
passages  quoted  have  been  mainly  derived  from  the 
translation  of  the  ante-Nicene  Fathers,  published 
by  T.  &  T.  Clark,  Edinburgh. 


CONTENTS, 


- +o* - 

CHAPTER  I. 

The  Enemies  of  the  Faith  ....  Page  i 

Early  History  of  the  Church  not  commonly  known 
- — Its  interest  to  Christians — The  Apologetic  Period 
— Its  characteristics — Its  special  difficulties — The  four 
great  opposing  forces — Law,  Reason,  Interest,  Super¬ 
stition. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Epochs  in  the  Struggle . Page  13 

Picture  1.  The  Commission — Picture  11.  The  Gift 
of  Power  and  the  first  Victory — Picture  III.  The 
struggle  deepens  and  widens  —  Picture  iv.  The 
contempt  of  the  world  —  Picture  v.  The  rapid 
increase — Picture  vi.  The  active  opposition — Pic¬ 
ture  vii.  The  extension  of  the  kingdom — Picture  VI II. 

The  pitched  battle  with  the  State — Picture  ix.  The 
last  bitter  struggle—  Picture  x.  The  triumph. 


CHAPTER  III. 

The  Defenders  of  the  Faith  .  .  .  Page  27 

The  Church’s  work  ;  Conversion  of  souls — Edifica¬ 
tion  of  the  faithful — Vindication  of  her  position  in  the 
eyes  of  men. — Work  of  the  Apologists — Its  limits — 

The  Apologetic  period — Those  addressed — The  re¬ 
sults  of  their  writings — Their  use  to  us. 


Vlll 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


The  Defence . Page  36 

Charges. — Immorality;  Basis  of  charge — Failure  of 
the  Investigations  to  procure  evidence — In  Bithynia — 

In  Gaul. — Counter-evidence ;  The  deaths  of  Christians 
— Reformation  of  life  produced  by  Christianity — 
Nature  of  Christianity. — Suspicion  caused  by  Gnostic 
Immorality — Charge  never  believed  in  by  intelligent 
heathen. — Monstrous  worship;  the  Christian's  God 
supposed  to  be  the  head  of  an  ass — The  Cross — The 
God  Serapis — The  bodies  of  the  martyrs. — Charge 
retorted  by  the  Apologists. — Atheism ;  Reason  for  the 
charge — Its  odium — The  Christians  reckoned  to  be 
responsible  for  the  troubles  of  the  times — Persecutions 
followed  on  calamities — The  Apologetic  answer — The 
times  are  not  specially  bad — The  world  is  growing 
old — The  Christians  have  a  God  whom  they  worship. 

— The  political  charge  ;  Roman  jealousy  against 
secret  societies — The  Christian  society  likely  to  ex¬ 
cite  jealousy — Could  not  be  tolerated — The  Chris¬ 
tians  the  cause  of  disturbances — The  novelty  of  Chris¬ 
tianity — The  legal  charge  against  the  Christians — 

A  Christian’s  trial — The  question  of  the  judge — A 
denial  accepted — Confession  followed  by  torture  to 
compel  denial — First  legal  recognition  of  Christianity. 

— Disloyalty  to  the  Emperor ;  another  King,  one 
Jesus — The  Christians  could  not  worship  the  Em¬ 
peror. — Unprofitableness  of  Christians  to  the  State; 
Christianity  all-absorbing — Charge  denied,  but  some 
reason  for  it — Idolatry  closely  connected  with  every 
sphere  of  public  life  —  Scruples  as  to  the  use  of 


arms. 


CONTENTS. 


IX 


CHAPTER  V. 


The  Attack . Page  71 

Christianity  intolerant — The  truth  of  the  heathen 
religion  already  given  up — Heathenism  maintained 
for  political  reasons — The  gods  vilified  in  the  games 
and  plays  —  The  old  Roman  religion  corrupted  — 
Superstition  still  strong. — Objections  against  heathen¬ 
ism  ;  Polytheism  —  Image-worship  —  Representa¬ 
tion  of  the  deities  by  images — History  of  the  gods — 

No  connection  between  Roman  prosperity  and  the 
Roman  religion — The  heathen  religion  demon-wor¬ 
ship — The  demons,  their  nature  and  works — Subject 
to  Christians. — The  heathen  philosophy;  its  slight 
results — Able  to  expose  error,  unable  to  discover  truth 
— Scepticism  of  the  age  —  Vices  of  philosophers — 
Philosophy  not  practical  —  Its  contradictions — Its 
Exclusiveness  —  Stoic  school  a  partial  exception  — 
Connection  of  philosophy  with  Christianity  ;  Justin’s 
view — Tertullian’s  view. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Christians  and  Christianity  .  .  .  Page  98 

The  God  of  the  Christians — God’s  Providence — 

The  immortality  of  the  soul  and  the  resurrection  of 
the  body — Doctrines  practical — Argument  from  ana¬ 
logy — Christian  religion  based  on  Christ — The  wis¬ 
dom  and  morality  of  His  teaching — Confessed  by 
heathen — Ancient  prophecies — Indiscriminate  use  of 
prophecy  by  Apologists — Testimonies  from  Scripture 
out  of  place  in  an  Apology  — Christ’s  miracles  ascribed 
to  magic — Contrasted  with  the  miracles  of  magicians 
— Purity  of  Christian  lives — Heathen  religion  and 
morality  not  connected — Christian  religion  spiritual 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


¥ 


— Firm  endurance  of  persecutions — Christian  love  to 
their  fellow-men — The  Christian  sacrifices — Lucian’s 
account  of  the  Christians — Celsus’s  account. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

The  Greek  Apologists .  Page  127 

Difference  between  the  Greek  and  Latin  Apologists; 

Time  —  Substance  —  Spirit.  —  Greek  Apologists  — 
Justin  ;  his  character — Studies  in  philosophy— Con¬ 
version— Active  labours — Death — His  first  Apology — 

His  Dialogue  with  Trypho. — Tatian  ;  his  heresy — his 
position — his  former  life — his  view  of  the  Greek 
religion  and  philosophy — Gnostic  tendencies  in  his 
Apology.  — Athenagoras  ;  a  philosopher — Plis  con¬ 
version — His  plea — Nothing  in  a  name — The  three 
charges — Plis  defence — Its  excellence. — Epistle  to 
Diognetus ;  its  occasion — Description  of  the  world 
before  Christ — Christ’s  coming — Its  difference  from 
other  Apologies. — Theophilus  ;  his  conversion — Plis 
references  to  the  Old  Testament.— Clement  of  Alex¬ 
andria  ;  his  Apology  an  exhortation  —  His  invitation 
to  the  heathen  to  listen  to  the  new  song. — Origen  ; 
his  Apology  an  answer  to  a  particular  work — Celsus’s 
method  of  attack — Origen’s  defence. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

The  Latin  Apologists . Page  165 

The  Latin  Apologists  Africans  —  Tertullian  ;  his 
Apology — Its  force — Its  inappropriate  spirit  —  Its 
description  of  the  Christian  trials — Its  answer  to  the 
charges  of  illegality — Immorality  —  Neglect  of  the 
gods — Parallel  between  the  making  of  images  and 
the  persecuting  of  Christians — Profanity  of  the  hea- 


* 


CONTENTS.  xi 

then  towards  their  own  gods — The  God  of  the  Chris¬ 
tians  Christ  —  Heathen  worship  the  worship  of 
demons — Christian  power  over  them — Roman  pros¬ 
perity  disconnected  from  Roman  piety — The  Chris¬ 
tians  not  traitors  to  the  Emperors — The  nature  of  the 
Christian  society — Distinction  between  Christianity 
and  philosophy — Appeal  against  the  heathen  cruelty — 
Merits  of  Tertullian’s  apology. — The  Testimony  of  the 
Soul — Why  useful  —  Whence  derived — Its  force. — 
Minucius  Felix  ;  a  dialogue — Its  scene — Caecilius’s 
statement — All  things  doubtful — Heathenism  useful — 
Christian  doctrines  foolish — Octavius’s  reply — Nature 
declares  God  plainly — God’s  providence  universal — 

God  one — God  incomprehensible — Character  of  the 
heathen  religion — Defence  of  the  Christians  against 
the  charges  of  immorality  and  foolishness. — Cyprian  ; 
his  description  of  Christian  sufferings — Description  of 
an  exorcism — Arnobius  ;  his  standpoint — His  specu¬ 
lations  on  the  nature  of  the  soul — His  argument 
against  material  sacrifices. — Lactantius  ;  his  ambitious 
object — His  criticisms  of  other  Apologists  — His  refu¬ 
tation  of  philosophy — Conclusion. 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH, 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  ENEMIES  OF  THE  FAITH. 

For  one  reason  or  another  the  views  of  most  of  us 
about  the  early  history  of  the  Christian  Church  are 
very  indefinite.  We  read  that  history  to  the  point 
where  it  is  left  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  then 
we  stop,  and  scarcely  ask  ourselves  what  became  of 
the  Apostles,  or  what  became  of  the  Church  when 
the  Apostles  died.  We  know  that  the  work  went  on  ; 
we  know  that  that  little  seed,  which,  in  the  Bible 
narrative,  we  see  sprouting,  grew  into  the  greatest  of 
trees.  We  know  that  the  growth  of  the  Church  was  not 
easy  or  unchecked.  We  have  read  of  the  sufferings  of 
the  martyrs,  and  have  learnt  something  of  the  cruel 
torments  inflicted  upon  men,  women,  and  children  to 
cause  them  to  deny  their  faith.  But  our  notions  are 
quite  vague.  We  scarcely  know  why  the  Christians 
were  persecuted,  or  how  they  defended  themselves. 
We  could  not  tell  the  names  of  the  champions  of  the 
faith  after  Apostolic  times.  We  know  something  about 
Bible  times,  and  we  know  something  about  Reforma- 

B 


2 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


tion  times,  but  the  intervening  history  is  far  too  much 
of  a  blank  to  us.  The  Church  was  living  and  doing 
its  work  all  that  time.  Why  should  we  know  nothing 
about  it  ? 

Now  it  is  quite  certain  we  lose  very  much  by  our 
ignorance.  Do  we  want  to  be  interested  ?  By  our 
ignorance  we  lose  the  most  thrilling  and  beautiful 
stories.  Do  we  want  to  be  instructed  ?  By  our  igno¬ 
rance  we  lose  the  most  noble  examples,  encourage¬ 
ments,  and  warnings.  There  is  something  in  the 
early  history  of  our  Church — remember  it  is  ours — 
which  is  likely  above  all  things  to  fire  us  with  noble 
purposes,  and  to  inspire  us  with  new  zeal  for  the  work 
we  have  in  our  generation  to  do.  Why  is  it  that  we 
enjoy  so  much  the  fine  old  stories  of  English  history, 
how  Alfred  defeated  the  Danes,  and  firmly  established 
his  kingdom,  or  Harold  and  his  English  stood  firm 
against  the  Norman  invader,  and  died  for  their 
country?  Why  is  it  that  Edward  Ids  wars  with  the 
Scots,  and  Edward  III.  and  Henry  V.’s  wars  with  the 
French,  interest  us  so  much,  and  yet  we  care  so  little 
for  the  battles  and  the  victories  of  the  Christian 
Church ?  “I  am  an  Englishman,”  you  say,  “ and 
therefore  it  is  that  I  am  proud  to  hear  what  my  brave 
English  ancestors  did  in  the  olden  days.”  You  are 
quite  right,  but  remember  also  you  are  a  Christian — 
you  belong  not  only  to  the  English  nation,  but  to  the 
Christian  Church.  Listen,  then,  to  the  story  of  the 
noble  deeds  of  your  Christian  ancestors.  Oh,  they 
were  very  brave  !  Oh,  they  were  very  patient !  They 
won  far  nobler  victories  than  Cressy  or  Agincourt. 
Your  English  ancestors,  in  days  gone  by,  won  for 


THE  ENEMIES  OF  THE  FAITH. 


3 


you  freedom  and  a  noble  name,  and  you  love  them. 
Your  Christian  ancestors  won  for  you  a  still  greater 
freedom  and  a  still  nobler  name.  Will  you  not  love 
them  too  ?  You  read  how  the  arrows  came  clouding 
the  air,  and  the  horsemen  came  rushing  headlong  to 
crush  the  little  army  of  English  who  stood  all  firm 
and  undaunted,  and  who,  though  few,  said  that  they 
did  not  ask  for  reinforcements,  they  were  enough  to 
conquer,  and  they  were  enough  to  die.  They  stood  in 
their  ranks,  they  fell  bravely,  they  triumphed  nobly, 
and  we  are  proud  of  them.  But  oh  !  be  proud  also 
of  that  army  which  is  fighting  still,  and  to  which  you 
yourself  belong,  “  who  through  faith  subdued  king¬ 
doms  .  .  .  .  waxed  valiant  in  fight,  and  turned  to 
flight  the  armies  of  the  aliens.”1  Remember  they 
suffered,  and  so  you  have  not  to  suffer  ;  they  laboured, 
and  you  have  entered  into  their  labours ;  you  are 
fighting  the  same  battle  and  under  the  same  banner ; 
they  have  won  the  victory,  and  you  must  win  the 
victory  in  the  same  way.  Will  it  not  be  well  for 
you  then  to  inquire  into  their  history,  so  that  you  may 
learn  who  were  their  enemies,  and  what  were  their 
weapons,  and  where  were  their  battlefields,  and  why 
they  fought,  and  how  they  fought,  and  how  in  God’s 
strength  they  won  the  victory?  And  now  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  this  book  has  been  pretty  clearly  stated.  It 
is  to  tell  you  the  story  of  the  battles  of  the  Christian 
Church,  and  the  champions  of  the  Christian  faith, 
in  early  times.  For  the  most  part  we  shall  confine 
ourselves  to  the  second  and  third  centuries  a.d. 


1  Hebrews  xi.  33,  34. 


4 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


Occasionally  there  will  be  something  to  say  about 
the  first  century,  and  once  or  twice  we  shall  have  to 
go  a  little  way  into  the  fourth ;  but  for  the  most  part 
we  shall  be  concerned  only  with  the  time  extending 
from  100  a.d.  to  300  a.d. 

Now  there  are  two  things  specially  to  notice  about 
this  period.  The  first  is,  the  Apostles  were  then  all 
dead,  and  those  who  succeeded  them  had  not  the  same 
outward  tokens  of  God’s  presence.  The  preachers  of 
the  Gospel  were  not  able,  generally  at  least,  to  heal 
the  bodies  of  men,  and  so  their  task  was  in  some 
respects  far  more  difficult,  and  a  hearing  was  not  so 
easily  obtained  by  them.  The  second  thing  to  notice 
is,  that  all  this  while  the  rulers  of  the  state  were 
heathen,  and  therefore  more  or  less  opposed  to 
Christianity.  Constantine  was  the  first  Christian 
emperor,  and  he  did  not  come  into  his  power  till  the 
year  312  a.d.  So  you  see,  during  this  period,  on  the 
one  hand,  some  of  the  help  God  had  hitherto  given 
the  Church  was  taken  away,  and  on  the  other,  she 
had  difficulties  to  contend  against  which  were  after¬ 
wards  removed.  This  was  the  time  of  the  hardest 
struggle  of  the  Christian  Church ;  this  was  the  time 
also  when  her  most  brilliant  victories  were  gained  ; 
this  was  the  time,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,  the  battle 
of  The  Faith  was  won. 

And  now  to  proceed  to  my  subject.  When  the 
last  surviving  Apostle  died,  only  a  beginning  of  the 
great  work  which  Christ  had  entrusted  to  His  Church 
had  been  made.  At  the  end  of  the  first  century,  the 
Christians  were  only  a  feeble  folk.  The  world  was 
just  beginning  to  know  about  them.  So  far  as  they 


THE  ENEMIES  OF  THE  FAITH.  5 

were  known,  they  were  hated  much,  but  despised 
more.  The  Roman  Empire  was  already  feeling  jealous 
about  them,  as  people  who  might  one  day  be  trouble¬ 
some  ;  it  was  soon  about  to  try  to  put  them  down. 
As  we  may  say,  the  two  armies — the  army  for  Christ 
and  the  army  against  Him — were  then  being  put  in 
array,  army  against  army.  The  one  army  was  like  “  two 
little  flocks  of  kids,”1  but  the  other  filled  the  whole 
earth.  If  you  looked  on  the  one  side  you  saw  nobody 
of  any  importance ;  at  the  present  day  we  scarcely 
know  more  than  half  a  dozen  of  their  names.  We 
may  safely  say  that  there  were  very  few  of  noble  birth, 
very  few  who  were  wise  with  worldly  wisdom,  very 
few  indeed  who  had,  as  far  as  men  could  see,  any 
qualifications  for  the  task  of  overcoming  the  world. 
They  belonged  mostly  to  the  most  despised  nation  of 
the  world,  and  that  nation  had  cast  them  out  of  her 
bosom.  The  Jews,  persecuted  by  all  others,  were 
themselves  persecutors  of  the  Christians. 

And  then,  on  the  other  side,  what  was  there  ? 
There  was  the  whole  world ;  and  a  world  united 
under  one  man,  who  ruled  it  according  to  his  own 
will  and  pleasure.  Such  was  his  power,  such  the 
reverence  he  received,  that  more  than  human  honours 
were  paid  him  ;  even  whilst  living  he  was  worshipped 
as  a  god. 

Now,  this  concentration  of  power  under  one  head 
added  greatly  to  the  difficulties  of  the  Church.  Other 
great  movements  have,  in  their  infancy  and  weakness, 
profited  greatly  by  the  fact  that  sovereignty  was  shared 


1  Kings  xx.  27. 


6 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


by  many  kingdoms,  commonly  rivals,  and  jealous  of 
one  another.  Political  necessities  have  often  pro¬ 
duced  the  strangest  combinations,  and  the  most 
unexpected  results.  At  the  worst  of  times,  the 
authority  of  a  State  could  not  extend  beyond  its  own 
limits ;  and  hence  those  persecuted  in  one  city  would 
flee  into  another.  But  the  Church  owed  its  victory 
to  no  such  external  circumstances ;  in  those  early 
times  there  was  but  one  State  and  one  ruler  of  it. 
The  law  said,  “The  Christians  ought  not  to  be  ” ; 
and  the  magistrates,  when  required,  had  always  to 
enforce  the  law.  And  when  the  emperor  said,  as  he 
sometimes  did  by  a  special  edict,  Put  that  law  into 
force ;  there  was  then  no  one  to  be  their  defender,  no 
land  to  which  they  could  fly  for  refuge,  no  political 
combinations  which  could  stay  the  persecuting  hand. 
And  thus  the  Christians,  without  any  earthly  defender, 
had  to  contend  against  the  whole  force  of  the  Law  ; 
they  had  to  withstand  the  united  force  of  the  great 
Roman  Empire  with  its  Emperor-god. 

But  this  was  not  all ;  all  the  wise  men  of  the 
world  were  against  them.  The  philosophers  of  that 
day  were,  for  the  most  part,  men  without  religion  and 
without  morality.  They  were  too  wise  to  believe  in 
the  old  heathen  gods,  but  they  were  not  wise  enough 
to  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  the  one  true  God. 
They  were  able,  some  of  them,  to  lay  down  excellent 
rules  of  life,  but  few  thought  it  necessary  to  put  them 
into  practice.  They  were  proud  and  self-sufficient, 
and  looked  down  with  contempt  upon  the  unlearned 
and  ignorant  common  people.  The  Christians  were, 
for  the  most  part,  unlearned  and  uneducated ;  and 


THE  ENEMIES  OF  THE  FAITH. 


7 


yet,  notwithstanding  their  deficiencies  in  philosophic 
training  and  intellectual  qualifications,  they  dared  to 
speak  authoritatively  on  matters  concerning  which 
the  wisest  teachers  professed  their  ignorance.  The 
philosophers  had  pulled  down  many  religions  in  their 
time ;  they  were  foes  to  all  superstitions,  and  now 
they  banded  together  to  pull  down  what  they  con¬ 
sidered  to  be  the  last  and  worst  of  all.  And  thus 
the  leaders  of  Thought  joined  the  rulers  of  the  State 
in  the  battle  against  the  Christian  name.  The  force 
of  Reason  was  added  to  the  force  of  Law. 

To  these  two  a  more  popular  and  widely-reaching 
force  was  added — the  force  of  Interest.  It  is  mar¬ 
vellous  to  see  how  closely  intertwined  were  the 
heathen  religion  and  all  that  concerned  the  outer 
life  of  a  man  and  the  administration  of  the  State.  The 
religion  of  a  man  had  little  or  nothing  to  do  with  his 
thoughts  or  affections,  and  it  exercised  little  or  no 
influence  over  his  morals ;  but  it  entered  into  every 
relation  and  action  of  his  family  and  public  life. 
When  you  were  born,  when  you  were  married,  and 
when  you  died,  gods  had  to  be  propitiated,  lest  they 
should  do  you  harm,  and  in  order  that  they  might 
do  you  good.  At  the  corners  of  the  streets,  and  at 
the  doors  of  the  houses,  in  the  halls,  and  in  the  bed¬ 
chambers,  at  every  turn  one  might  say,  images  met 
your  eye.  There  was  no  occupation  over  which 
some  god  did  not  preside,  no  public  festival  without 
its  religious  sacrifices,  no  act  of  business  without  its 
idolatrous  ceremonies.  It  followed,  of  course,  that 
there  were  thousands  of  people  who  got  their  living 
from  the  idolatrous  worship  ;  and  therefore  thousands 


8 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


of  people  who  were  most  anxious  that  the  old 
heathen  customs  should  be  kept  up.  Very  early  we 
see  the  force  of  interest  exerted  against  Christianity. 
“By  this  craft  we  have  our  wealth,”1  said  Demetrius 
to  the  makers  of  silver  shrines  for  Diana.  By  Paul’s 
preaching,  “  this  our  craft  is  in  danger  to  be  set 
at  nought.”2  The  fear  of  such  a  result  was  sufficient, 
as  we  know ;  forthwith  the  craftsmen  stirred  up  the 
people.  Similarly,  Pliny  (a.d.  ioo  circa),  Governor 
of  Bithynia,  noticed  that  in  his  province  there 
was  no  demand  for  the  sacrificial  victims ;  in 
consequence,  he  ordered  an  inquiry,  and  ulti¬ 
mately  a  persecution.  It  was  of  direct  importance 
to  the  Government  that  the  temples  should  be  well 
attended  ;  when  they  were  deserted  their  revenues 
declined.3  By  the  advance  of  Christianity,  the 
priests  lost  their  profits  and  their  influence,  the 
armies  their  soldiers,  the  lawyers  their  clients,  the 
taverns  their  customers,  and  the  sculptors  and 
painters  their  patrons.4  All  the  artists  and  craftsmen 
derived  the  better  part  of  their  gains  from  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  the  heathen  religion.  And  besides  the 
temples  and  their  gods  there  were  also  the  shows 
and  the  games.  The  Christians  could  not  join  in 
the  idolatry  of  the  one,  they  dared  not  come  in 
contact  with  the  pollutions  of  the  other.  The  hangers- 
on  at  the  shows  were  only  less  numerous  and  various 
than  those  at  the  temples ;  and  thus  we  see  the  con¬ 
tingent  to  the  army  against  Christ,  collected  under 

1  Acts  xix.  25.  2  lb.  xix.  27.  3  Tert.  Apol.  c.  42. 

4  Cf.  for  this  Blunt’s  ‘Three  Centuries,’  pp,  144,  145. 


THE  ENEMIES  OF  THE  FAITH. 


9 


the  banner  of  Interest,  was  very  large.  With  intense 
bitterness  all  these  men  banded  themselves  together 
against  a  religion,  which  deprived  them  not  only  of 
the  gods  which  they  worshipped  but  of  the  food 
which  they  ate.  And  thus  to  the  force  of  Law  and 
Reason  was  added  the  force  of  Interest . 

To  these  three  forces,  strong  as  they  were,  yet  an¬ 
other,  perhaps  the  strongest  of  all,  was  added — the 
force  of  Superstition . 

The  philosophers  might  have  sneered  to  their  heart’s 
content ;  those  who  earned  a  livelihood  from  idolatry 
or  the  public  games  might  have  grumbled ;  but  the 
State  and  the  powers  of  the  law  would  have  been 
indifferent ;  had  it  not  been  that  the  common  people 
rose  with  one  voice  and  said,  “  Away  with  these  fellows 
from  the  earth,  for  it  is  not  meet  that  they  should 
live.”  In  most  of  the  persecutions  of  the  2nd  century, 
it  was  the  people,  not  the  State  authorities,  which  took 
the  initiative.  No  doubt  interested  agitators  were 
behind  the  scenes,  but  the  popular  fury  was,  beyond 
all,  the  persecuting  force.  The  order  of  proceedings 
commonly  was,  first,  popular  risings  against  the 
Christians,  and  then,  proceedings  against  them  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  forms  of  law.  Very  often  the  Emperor 
and  the  provincial  governors  were  their  best  friends. 
Trajan  discouraged  anonymous  informations.1  Ha¬ 
drian  said  the  Christians  were  not  to  be  arrested  on 
mere  popular  clamour.2  Antoninus  Pius  strongly 
disapproved  of  the  violent  proceedings  of  the  mob.2 
Aurelius  says  the  Christians  must  be  punished  with 

1  Trajan’s  Letter  to  Pliny. 

2  Cf.  Neander  *  History  of  the  Church,’  pp.  140,  143. 


IO 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


divers  tortures  yet  so  that  justice  is  mingled.1  The 
governors  also  sometimes  did  not  fear  the  people,2 
and  contrived  means  of  dismissing  the  Christians 
unpunished.  Certainly  of  all  the  enemies  of  the 
Church  the  people  were  the  most  bitter  and  violent. 
Tertullian3  tells  us  that  none  more  frequently  than 
the  rabble  demanded  the  lives  of  the  Christians. 
“  How  often,”  he  says,  “does  the  hostile  mob,  paying 
no  regard  to  you  (i.e.  the  authorities),  take  the  law 
into  its  own  hand,  and  assail  us  with  stones  and 
flames  !” 

And  the  reason  of  this  appears  to  be  quite  plain. 
It  was  their  Superstition  which  urged  the  people  on. 
We  must  remember  that  the  heathen  religion  was  an 
elaborate  plan  for  securing  national  prosperity.  The 
sacrifices  were  bribes  to  secure  the  favour  of  the  gods, 
or  rather,  perhaps,  magic  spells  to  compel  them  to 
act  according  to  the  sacrificer’s  wish.4  If  everything 
was  done  properly,  without  a  mistake  in  the  prayer 
of  consecration,  or  the  occurrence  of  a  sight  or  sound 
of  ill  omen  at  the  time  of  sacrificing,  or  a  defect  in 
the  entrails  of  the  victim,  then  the  wished-for  result 
was  sure  to  be  secured,  the  god  was  compelled  to  be 
propitious.6  Of  course  it  followed  that  times  of 
difficulty,  danger,  or  calamity,  were  times  for  special 
vows  and  sacrifices.  Generals  uttered  vows  just  be¬ 
fore  joining  battle  with  the  enemy.  A  pestilence 
filled  the  temples  with  devout  worshippers.  The  idea 

1  Cf.  Neander,  ‘  History  of  the  Church,’  p.  149. 

2  Tert.  ad  Scapulam,  c.  4. 

3  Apol.  c.  37.  4  Dollinger’s  ‘  Jew  and  Gentile,’  p.  75. 

5  Dollinger’s  ‘  Jew  and  Gentile,’  p.  77. 


THE  ENEMIES  OF  THE  FAITH.  II 

in  many  minds,  at  such  a  time,  was,  the  gods,  one 
or  all,  are  angry  because  we  have  neglected  them  ; 
if  we  only  sacrifice  largely  enough,  prosperity  will 
return.  The  expense  incurred  by  the  State  on 
these  sacrifices  for  national  prosperity  was  very 
great.  Sometimes  it  was  so  difficult  to  get  sacri¬ 
fices  that  representations  in  bread  or  wax  took 
the  place  of  the  animals  themselves.  As  many  as 
three  hundred  bulls  were  offered  in  one  sacrifice 
to  one  god.  At  the  death  of  Tiberius  and  at 
Caligula’s  accession  to  the  throne,  upwards  of 
160,000  victims  were  sacrificed.  Augustus  and 
Marcus  Aurelius  used  so  many  beasts,  that  it  was 
said  all  oxen  and  calves  hoped  that  the  emperors 
might  never  return  from  their  journeys  or  campaigns, 
as  otherwise  they  would  be  infallibly  lost.1 

It  so  happened  that  in  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries 
there  was  a  constant  succession  of  calamities  in  the 
State.  There  were  “  famines,  and  pestilences,  and 
earthquakes.”  “  The  gods  are  angry  ”  was  the  general 
cry.  “  These  calamities  have  fallen  upon  us  because 
their  shrines  are  neglected ;  we  must  propitiate  them 
with  sacrifices.”  They  did  so.  But  there  were  many 
gaps  in  the  line  of  worshippers  ;  the  Christians  ab¬ 
sented  themselves.  By  them  were  addressed  no 
supplications,  by  them  were  offered  no  gifts  of  expia¬ 
tion  to  the  angry  gods.  Then  the  popular  anger  burst 
forth  in  uncontrollable  fury.  “  It  is  because  of  those 
impious  Christians,”  they  said,  “  that  we  are  suffering 
all  these  troubles.  Away  with  them  to  the  lion.” 


1  For  all  this  see  Dollinger’s  ‘Jew  and  Gentile,’  p.  80. 


12 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


At  such  times  the  Christians  suffered  without  trial  at 
all.  Although  the  magistrates  might  scoff  at  popular 
superstition,  they  quailed  before  the  popular  wrath. 
They  might  expostulate,  but  when  they  saw  that  they 
prevailed  nothing  and  that  rather  a  tumult  was  made, 
they  let  the  people  have  their  own  way.  They  put  the 
existing  law  in  force  against  men  for  whom  they  cared 
nothing,  and  who  in  their  opinion  deserved  punish¬ 
ment  for  being  so  obstinate  and  troublesome. 

And  thus  we  see  that  these  four  forces,  Law ,  Reason , 
Interest ,  and  Superstition,  were  all  combined  against 
the  disciples  of  Christ.  The  learned  few  and  the 
superstitious  many,  the  law  administrators  and  the 
lawless  mob,  those  who  reckoned  the  heathen  religion 
to  be  the  great  support  of  the  State  power  and  those 
who  knew  that  it  gave  them  support  and  subsistence, 
the  priests  and  philosophers,  the  kings  and  people,  all 
hated  the  name  of  Christ,  and  all  at  times  combined 
together  to  give  His  Church  a  crushing  blow.  The 
heathen  raged,  the  people  imagined  a  vain  thing  ;  “the 
kings  of  the  earth  stood  up,  and  the  rulers  were  gathered 
together  against  the  Lord  and  against  His  Christ.” 
And  what  was  the  result  ?  He  that  dwelleth  in 
heaven  laughed  them  to  scorn ;  the  Lord  had  them 
in  derision.  He  said,  “/  have  set  my  King  on  my 
holy  hill  of  Zion.”  He  fulfilled  His  promise,  “Ask 
of  me  and  I  shall  give  Thee  the  heathen  for  Thine 
inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for 
Thy  possession.” 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE. 


*3 


CHAPTER  II. 

EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE. 

In  the  last  chapter  a  description  was  given  of  the 
enemies  against  which  the  early  Christians  had  to  fight. 
This  chapter  is  intended  to  describe,  in  a  series  of 
separate  pictures,  various  epochs  in  the  struggle. 

PICTURE  i. 

A  few  men  and  women  are  assembled  in  an  upper 
room  in  a  house  at  J  erusalem.  The  number  of  their 
names  is  about  one  hundred  and  twenty.  Their 
Lord  and  Master  has  just  been  taken  up  from  them 
into  heaven.  He  has  left  them  His  charge,  and 
it  is  this  :  “  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
in  earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you  :  and, 
lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world.  Amen.”1 

According  to  the  instructions  given,  they  are 
tarrying  in  the  city  of  Jerusalem  for  the  promise  of 
the  Father  of  which  Jesus  had  told  them.  They 


Matt,  xxviii.  18,  19,  20. 


14 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


continue  in  prayer  and  supplication,  and  they  are 
waiting  for  the  signal  to  go  forth  and  conquer  the 
world. 

PICTURE  II. 

The  time  of  waiting  is  over,  and  the  day  of  work 
and  conflict  has  begun.  The  Day  of  Pentecost  is 
running  its  course.  The  promise  has  been  fulfilled, 
“  I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh/’  The 
Church  fights  its  first  battle,  and  wins  its  first  victory. 
“  The  same  day  there  are  added  unto  them  about 
three  thousand  souls.” 

PICTURE  III. 

Now  comes  a  time  when  the  struggle  widens  and 
deepens. 

At  first  the  battle-ground  is  Jerusalem,  and  the 
Church’s  chief  enemy  the  Jews.  Then  persecution 
disperses  Christ’s  soldiers  into  many  different  coun¬ 
tries.  Unlike  the  armies  of  the  World,  dispersion 
increases  the  power  of  the  army  of  the  Cross.  One 
single  soldier  of  Christ  is  able  to  seize  and  hold  a 
position  for  his  Lord.  Still  hatred  and  opposition 
follow  them  wherever  they  go.  The  Jews  will  not 
believe,  and  stir  up  the  Gentiles.  The  Gentiles  com¬ 
plain  that  these  men  are  turning  the  world  upside 
down.  Men  can  no  longer  ignore  the  infant  Church. 
To  the  period  of  insignificance  succeeds  one  of  ever- 
increasing  hatred. 

Forty  years  pass  away.  The  testimony  of  the  Jews 
now  is,  “  This  sect  is  everywhere  spoken  against.”  1 


1  Acts  xxviii.  22. 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE.  1 5 

And  as  for  the  Gentiles,  the  Emperor  Nero,  having 
set  fire  to  Rome,  wants  a  scapegoat  on  which  to  lay 
his  own  crimes,  and  he  finds  the  Christians  ready  to 
his  hand.  Now  comes  the  first  great  sowing  of  the 
seed-blood  of  the  Christians.  They  are  crucified. 
They  are  sewn  up  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts  and 
thrown  to  the  dogs.  Their  garments  are  smeared 
with  pitch,  and  they  are  set  on  fire  to  light  up  the 
public  gardens.  The  people  think  they  suffer  un¬ 
justly;  they  believe  them  to  be  guiltless  of  the  crime 
ascribed  to  them ;  but  after  all  they  are  guilty  of 
hatred  of  the  human  race,  and  they  are  odious  for 
their  crimes.1 


PICTURE  IV. 

Still  as  yet  the  Roman  Government  hardly  deems 
the  Christians  worthy  of  its  notice,  and  has,  certainly, 
not  the  remotest  conception  what  they  are  aiming  at.2 
A  jealous  tyrant,  Domitian,  is  on  the  throne,  and  he 
hears  the  Christians  are  setting  up  a  kingdom.  He 
inquires  who  is  to  be  the  king.  He  is  told  about 
David  and  David’s  throne,  and  about  Christ  the  son 
of  David.  Then  he  seizes  the  grandsons  of  Judas, 
called  the  brother  of  our  Lord ;  he  thinks  they  must 
be  David’s  heirs  and  Christ’s  heirs.  They  are  brought 
before  him  to  be  examined.  They  are  simple,  rude 
men,  not  the  sort  of  stuff  out  of  which  conspirators  or 
pretenders  to  thrones  are  made.  He  finds  they  have 
a  little  farm  which  they  cultivate  with  their  own  hands. 
They  have  the  strong  bodies  and  the  hard  hands  of 


1  Tacitus,  Annals,  xv.  44. 


2  Eusebius,  H.E.  iii.  20. 


l6  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

tillers  of  the  soil.  He  asks  them  about  the  kingdom 
they  are  setting  up,  and  finds  that  it  is  spiritual  and 
angelic,  and  that  it  will  appear  at  the  end  of  the 
world.  When  he  hears  this  he  is  too  contemptuous 
to  make  a  reply ;  he  sends  them  away  as  fools  beneath 
his  jealousy  or  his  notice. 

PICTURE  v. 

A  very  few  years  later,  and  the  Church,  working  se¬ 
cretly,  has  so  prospered  as  to  excite  the  attention  of  the 
Roman  governor  of  Bithynia.  He  finds  the  temples 
deserted.  He  is  told  few  now  buy  victims  for  the 
sacrifices.  The  “  contagious  superstition  ”  (that  is  his 
name  for  Christianity)  is  not  confined  to  the  cities 
only,  it  has  spread  to  the  villages.  Many  of  all  ranks 
and  ages,  and  of  both  sexes,  are  infected.  Persecu¬ 
tion  involves  so  many  that  he  feels  himself  obliged  to 
refer  the  matter  to  the  Emperor.  Although  the  mea¬ 
sures  he  adopts  have  some  success,  the  crime  extends 
even  during  the  persecution,  and  seems  likely  to  ex¬ 
tend  still  further. 

A  little  later  still,  and  the  martyr  Justin  .says  that, 
wide  as  is  the  dispersion  of  the  Jews,  wider  still  is  the 
dispersion  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  “There  is  not 
one  single  race  of  men,  whether  Barbarians  or  Greeks, 
or  whatever  they  may  be  called,  whether  nomads  oi 
vagrants,  or  herdsmen  living  in  tents,  amongst  whom 
prayers  and  giving  of  thanks  are  not  offered  through 
the  name  of  the  crucified  Jesus.”1 


1  Justin  Martyr,  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  c.  1 1 7. 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE. 


*7 


PICTURE  VI. 

Do  you  think  the  Christians  spread  because  nobody 
opposed  them?  Look  at  this  picture,  painted  by 
those  who  were  engaged  in  the  conflict.1  It  is  to  be 
found  in  a  letter  which  begins  thus  :  “  The  servants 
of  Christ  dwelling  in  Vienne  and  Lyons  of  Gaul  to 
our  brethren  of  Asia  and  Phrygia,  who  have  the 
same  faith  and  hope  of  redemption  with  us.  Peace, 
grace,  and  glory  be  to  you  from  God  the  Father  and 
Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.” 

This  is  their  account — 

“The  greatness,  indeed,  of  the  tribulation,  and  the 
extent  of  the  madness  exhibited  by  the  heathen 
against  the  saints,  and  the  sufferings  which  the 
blessed  martyrs  endured,  we  are  not  able  fully  to 
declare,  nor  is  it  indeed  possible  to  describe  them. 
For  the  adversary  assailed  us  with  his  whole  strength, 
giving  us  already  a  foretaste  how  unbridled  his  future 
movements  among  us  would  be.  And  indeed  he  re¬ 
sorted  to  every  means  to  accustom  and  exercise  his 
own  servants  against  those  of  God,  so  that  we  should 
not  only  be  excluded  from  houses,  and  baths,  and 
markets,  but  everything  belonging  to  us  was  pro¬ 
hibited  from  appearing  in  any  place  whatever.  But 
the  grace  of  God  contended  for  us,  and  rescued  the 
weak,  and  prepared  those  who,  like  firm  pillars,  were 
able,  through  patience,  to  sustain  the  whole  weight  of 
the  enemy’s  violence  against  him.  These  came  to 
close  quarters  with  them,  enduring  every  species  of 
reproach  and  torture.  Making  light  of  grievous  trial, 

1  Eusebius,  II. E.  v.  I. 

C 


1 8  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

they  hastened  to  Christ,  showing  in  reality  that  *  the 
sufferings  of  this  present  time  are  not  worthy  to  be 
compared  with  the  glory  that  shall  be  revealed  in  us/ 
And  first,  they  nobly  sustained  all  the  evils  that  were 
heaped  upon  them  by  the  populace,  clamours  and 
blows,  plunderings  and  robberies,  and  whatsoever  a 
savage  mob  delight  to  inflict  upon  its  enemies.  After 
this  they  were  led  to  the  forum ;  and  when  they  had 
been  interrogated  by  the  tribune  and  the  authorities 
of  the  city  in  the  presence  of  the  multitude,  they  were 
shut  up  in  prison  until  the  arrival  of  the  governor.” 

This,  be  it  remembered,  is  but  the  beginning  of  the 
persecution — the  prelude  of  infinitely  worse  things. 
But  it  is  quite  enough  to  convince  us  that  the  Chris¬ 
tians  had  to  face  most  violent  opposition,  and  patiently 
to  endure  the  bitterest  trials. 

PICTURE  VII. 

What  is  the  result?  Tertullian  says,  thirty  years 
after,  “  The  more  we  are  mown  down  by  you,  the 
more  in  number  we  grow;  the  blood  of  the  Christians 
is  seed.” 1  And  again — “  We  are  but  of  yesterday,  and 
have  filled  every  place  among  you  ;  we  leave  nothing 
to  you  but  the  temples  of  your  gods.” 2  Christ’s 
kingdom  has  already  extended  further  than  any  king¬ 
dom  of  the  world.  Solomon,  he  observes,  reigned 
only  from  Beersheba  to  Dan.  Darius  had  not  power 
over  all  nations.  The  Egyptians  alone  acknowledged 
the  rule  of  Pharaoh.  Nebuchadnezzar  and  Alexander 
had  boundaries  to  their  kingdoms.  The  Germans 
are  enclosed  within  their  territory.  The  sea  shuts  in 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  50. 


2  lb.  c.  37. 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE.  1 9 

the  Britons.  The  Moors  are  kept  in  bounds  by  the 
Romans.  The  Romans  cannot  extend  their  empire 
amongst  the  Barbarians.  “  But  Christ’s  name  is  ex¬ 
tended  everywhere,  and  believed  everywhere,  and 
worshipped  by  all  these  nations.  Everywhere  He 
reigns,  everywhere  He  is  adored,  everywhere  He  is 
imparted  equally  to  all.” 1 

PICTURE  VIII. 

Fifty  years  later,  and  after  a  long  period  of  rest  to 
the  Church,  the  Roman  State  determines  that  it  will 
put  the  Christians  down.  It  has,  meanwhile,  gone  so 
far  at  times  as  to  show  a  benevolent  neutrality  towards 
them,  though  more  often  it  has  been  hostile.  One 
emperor  has  tacitly  acknowledged  that  the  Christians 
ought  to  be  allowed  to  exist,  and  has  decided  that  a 
piece  of  ground  would  be  more  fitly  occupied  by  a 
Christian  church  than  by  a  pastry-cook’s  shop.  Mostly, 
the  emperors  have  moderated  the  rigour  of  the  laws 
and  the  fury  of  the  people.  But  now  the  State  awakes 
to  the  fact  that  the  contest  with  Christianity  is  a  matter 
of  life  and  death — that  if  it  does  not  put  the  Christians 
down,  they  will  put  it  down.  So  the  first  systematic 
effort  to  suppress  Christianity  is  made.  Every  citizen 
has,  on  a  given  day,  to  appear  before  the  magistrates 
and  offer  sacrifices  to  the  gods.  It  seems  as  if  the 
Christian  army  would  hardly  have  won  this  battle  had 
it  not  been  relieved.  During  the  time  of  peace  many 
soldiers,  fit  only  for  peace,  had  been  added  to  the 
ranks.2 

1  Tert.  c.  Judseos,  c.  7.  2  Cyp.  de  Lapsis,  c.  5. 

C  2 


20 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


Alexandria  and  Carthage  are  the  chief  battle-fields 
of  which  we  have  a  record.  In  Alexandria1  popular 
disturbances  precede  the  imperial  edict.  A  prophet 
appears  who  incites  the  people  to  do  their  gods  ser* 
vice  by  slaying  the  Christians.  Aged  men  and  women 
are  torn  in  pieces.  Houses  are  plundered.  No 
Christian  dare  show  his  face  in  the  streets.  The 
decree  is  promulgated ;  on  a  certain  day  all  Christians 
are  publicly  to  offer  sacrifice  to  the  heathen  gods. 
Then  the  hearts  of  the  faithful  fail  them,  and  it  is  feared 
that,  if  possible,  even  the  elect  will  stumble.  A  wide¬ 
spread  apostasy  follows.  To  some  their  conspicuous 
position,  to  others  their  office  in  the  State,  was  the 
stumbling-block.  Fear  overcame  the  constancy  of 
some ;  friends  over-persuaded  others.  The  day 
appointed  by  the  decree  arrived.  The  roll-call 
was  made.  Some  came  up  pale  and  trembling, 
amidst  the  jeers  of  the  bystanders,  afraid  either  to 
sacrifice  or  die.  Others,  more  bold  in  their  apostasy, 
denied  they  had  ever  been  Christians.  Some  fled 
away.  Others  endured  imprisonment  and  even 
torture  for  a  while,  and  then  apostatized.  And  there 
was  a  faithful  remnant,  firm  and  blessed  pillars  of  the 
Lord,  strengthened  by  Him,  and  receiving  from  Him 
strength  proportioned  to  their  mighty  faith,  who  be¬ 
came  marvellous  witnesses  of  His  kingdom. 

At  Carthage  the  state  of  things  was  very  similar.2 
There  were  many  different  kinds  of  apostates.3  Those 
who  sacrificed ;  those  who,  by  fraud  and  the  con- 

1  Eus.  II.  E.  vi.  41.  2  Cyprian  de  Lapsis,  c.  6. 

3  Cyp.  Ep.  30. 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE. 


21 


nivance  of  the  magistrate,  obtained,  without  sacri¬ 
ficing,  a  certificate  (libellum)  that  they  had  ;  those 
who  said  they  had  sacrificed  and  had  got  a  certificate, 
having  none;  and  those  who  allowed  others  to  lie  for 
them.  There  were  those,  also,  thanks  be  to  God, 
who  endured  to  the  end. 

For  the  elects’  sake,  whom  He  had  chosen,  God 
shortened  these  days.  Had  it  not  been  so,  it  seems 
as  if  the  hopes  of  the  enemy  would  have  been  realized, 
and  Ghristianity  been  crushed.  Tidings  out  of  the 
East  and  the  North  troubled  Decius,  and  soon  he 
came  to  his  end.  The  persecution  did  not  outlast 
him  long,  and  ten  years  afterwards  Christianity  was, 
for  the  first  time,  acknowledged  to  be  a  lawful  religion 
of  the  Roman  State. 


PICTURE  IX. 

One  last  bitter  conflict  with  the  powers  of  the  State  ; 
and  then,  in  a  certain  sense,  the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  became  the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  His 
Christ. 

On  February  22nd,  303,  the  storm,  long  hovering, 
burst.  The  Emperor  Diocletian  is  over-persuaded  by 
his  colleague  Galerius  to  crush  that  imperium  in  im- 
perio — the  Christian  Church.  The  cathedral  church 
of  Nicomedia  is  broken  open,  and  its  Bibles  and 
office-books  are  burnt ;  the  building  is  first  ransacked, 
and  then  hewn  to  the  ground.  The  next  day  an  im¬ 
perial  edict  appears.  All  churches  are  to  be  levelled 
to  the  ground — all  sacred  books  are  to  be  burnt. 
Christian  officials  are  to  lose  their  places  and  all  their 
civil  rights — private  Christians  are  to  become  slaves. 


22 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


Then  comes  a  time  when,  throughout  the  Empire, 
Bibles  are  burnt,  churches  are  destroyed,  and  the 
prisons  are  full  of  priests  ;  a  time  when  Christian 
men  are  tortured  with  incredible  horrors,  and  Christian 
women  are  sent  to  the  brothels,  and  vile  blasphemies 
are  forged  and  circulated  against  the  name  of  Christ. 
“  The  men  bore  fire,  sword,  and  crucifixions,  savage 
beasts,  and  the  depths  of  the  sea,  the  maiming  of 
limbs,  and  searing  with  red-hot  irons,  pricking  and 
digging  out  the  eyes,  and  mutilation  of  the  whole  body, 
moreover,  hunger,  and  mines,  and  prisons.  And 
in  all  they  exhibited  a  brave  endurance  for  the  sake  of 
religion,  rather  than  transfer  that  veneration  and  wor¬ 
ship  which  are  due  to  God  only,  to  idols.  The  women 
also,  no  less  than  the  men,  were  strengthened  by  the 
doctrine  of  the  Divine  Word ;  so  that  some  endured 
the  same  trials  as  the  men,  and  bore  away  the  same 
prizes  of  excellence.  Some,  when  forced  away,  yielded 
up  their  lives  rather  than  submit  to  the  violation  of 
their  bodies.”  1 

Then  was  the  boast  made  that  the  Christian  name 
was  destroyed,  and  the  worship  of  the  gods  restored.2 
Then  did  the  heathen  rejoice  in  bounteous  harvests, 
and  settled  peace,  and  a  healthy  air,  and  a  calm  sea, 
and  a  serene  sky ;  all  visible  tokens,  as  they  thought, 
that  the  gods  were  once  more  propitious  to  an  empire 
at  length  separated  from  pollution  and  impiety.3 

The  boasting  was  idle,  and  the  gleam  of  prosperity 
delusive.4  Famine,  pestilence,  and  war  desolated  the 

1  Eusebius,  II.  E.  viii.  14. 

2  See  the  inscriptions  found  at  Clunia  in  Spain. 

3  Eus.  H.  E.  ix.  7.  4  lb.  ix.  8. 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE.  23 

Empire  at  once.  The  only  alleviation  to  these  troubles 
was  the  conduct  of  the  Christians.  They  only,  in 
these  distressing  circumstances,  exhibited  sympathy 
and  humanity.  By  them  the  famishing  were  fed,  and 
the  dead  were  buried.  The  fact  was  cried  abroad,  and 
men  glorified  the  Christians’  God.  The  Emperor,  so 
lately  the  blasphemer  of  Christ  and  of  Christians,  com 
pletely  changed  his  policy,  and  said  persecution  was 
a  mistake  he  had  never  intended,  and  he  granted 
full  freedom  of  worship,  and  ordered  the  churches 
to  be  rebuilt,  and  the  confiscated  property  to  be 
restored.1 

Nevertheless,  the  historian  tells  us,3  vengeance  from 
God  quickly  overtook  him.  Whilst  his  army  was  over 
thrown  in  the  battle-field,  he  perished  miserably  at 
home.  And  in  his  dying  agony  he  confessed  that  he 
suffered  justly  for  his  wanton  excesses  against  the 
Christians. 

picture  x. 

Now  for  our  last  scene.  The  persecutors  are  dead. 
The  Roman  Empire  has  owned  itself  vanquished. 
On  the  banners  of  the  army — once  idolatrous  signs — 
is  to  be  seen  the  sign  of  Christ.  Under  the  banner 
of  the  Cross  the  Romans  now  go  forth  to  victory.  The 
Emperor  rebuilds  and  beautifies  Christian  churches, 
and  he  causes  copies  of  the  Scriptures  to  be  made. 
He  commands  all  the  people  of  the  East  to  honour 
the  Christian  religion,  and  to  worship  the  one  true 
God,  whose  power  endureth  for  ever.3 

1  Eus.  II.  E.  ix.  9.  2  lb.  ix.  10. 

3  Sozomen,  II.  E.  i.  8. 


24 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


Then  troubles  inside  the  Christian  Church  arise. 
Constantine,  the  Emperor,  is  greatly  distressed.  He 
knows  his  own  inability  to  mend  matters,  and  he 
determines  to  summon  a  meeting  of  those  who  can, 
viz.,  the  bishops  of  the  Church.  So,  at  the  command 
of  the  Emperor,  in  conveyances  provided  by  him,  the 
most  eminent  of  the  ministers  of  God  in  all  the 
Churches  which  had  filled  Europe,  Africa,  and  Asia, 
were  gathered  together.1 

One  single  building  contained,  by  representation, 
the  Syrians  and  the  Cilicians,  the  Phoenicians  and  the 
Arabians,  the  Palestinians,  the  Egyptians,  the  Thebans, 
the  Libyans,  and  the  dwellers  in  Mesopotamia. 
Persia  had  its  representative,  nor  was  a  Scythian 
lacking.  Pontus  and  Galatia,  Pamphylia,  Cappadocia, 
Asia,  and  Phrygia,  supplied  the  most  distinguished 
representatives  of  all.  Besides  these  there  met  to¬ 
gether  there,  Thracians  and  Macedonians,  Achseans 
and  Epirots,  and  those  who  lived  at  a  greater  distance 
still.  Spain  sent  Hosius,  Bishop  and  Confessor.  Rome 
sent  two  priests  to  represent  her  aged  bishop.  The 
three  other  Apostolic  thrones,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and 
Alexandria,  were  represented  by  their  bishops  in 
person.  Of  bishops  the  total  number  was  318,  and 
of  attendant  priests,  and  deacons,  and  acolytes,  the 
number  was  beyond  count.  It  was  indeed  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  and  august  assembly,  such  as  the  world 
had  never  seen.2  Some  of  them,  says  Eusebius,  were 
eminent  for  their  wisdom  j  some  for  the  austerity  of 

1  Soc.  H.  E.  i.  7,  8. 

2  Life  of  Constantine,  iii.  7—9  ;  Socrates,  Ilist.  Eccl.  i.  8. 


EPOCHS  IN  THE  STRUGGLE. 


25 


their  life  and  patient  endurance  of  persecution  ;  and 
some  for  their  modesty.  Some  were  venerable  for 
their  age ;  and  some  rejoiced  in  the  vigour  of  their 
youth.  As  another  historian  puts  it,  “  Some  were 
richly  endowed  with  apostolical  gifts,  and  many  bore 
in  their  bodies  the  marks  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  1 

Into  that  assembly,  summoned,  conveyed,  and  sup¬ 
ported  by  himself,  the  Emperor  Constantine  enters.2 
He  leaves  his  heathen  attendants  at  the  door.  All  rise 
to  receive  him,  but  he  waits  permission  to  take  his  seat. 
When  he  has  taken  his  place,  all  present  take  theirs. 
Then  he  tells  them  his  desire.  It  is  to  promote  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  He  reckons  disunion  therein 
to  be  an  evil  more  terrible  and  more  grievous  than 
any  kind  of  war.  He  trusts  they  will  banish  all  causes 
of  dissension,  so  as  to  accomplish  a  work  most  agree¬ 
able  to  God,  and  thus  cause  him,  their  fellow-servant, 
infinite  joy.  Then  he  leaves  them  to  accomplish  un¬ 
impeded  a  task  in  which  he  has  no  share. 

And  thus  we  see  Christ  has  conquered.  Kings 
have  begun  to  bow  down  before  Him  ;  all  nations 
have  begun  to  do  Him  service.  The  Roman  Empire 
has  succumbed  before  the  power  of  the  Christian 
Church.  Not,  indeed,  that  the  work  of  Christ’s 
Church  is  accomplished ;  far  from  it.  Her  victory  is 
far  more  apparent  than  real.  But  she  has  won  her 
position  in  the  world.  Henceforward  the  Church  and 
the  State  will  be  no  longer  open  enemies.  Nay,  the 
State  will  take  the  Church  under  its  protection,  and 
the  edicts  of  emperors  will  enforce  the  decisions  of 


1  Theodoret,  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  7. 


2  Soc.  Hist.  Eccl.  i.  8. 


26 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FATIH. 


bishops.  But  the  victories  which  statecraft  and  state- 
power  will  gain  will  not  be  so  pure  and  holy,  not  so 
real  and  lasting,  as  those  which  were  won  by  the 
Divine  power  of  the  Truth.  The  State  has  gained  an 
outward  garb  of  Christianity,  but  the  Church  has  now 
a  source  of  corruption  within.  She  has  not,  in  times 
gone  by,  feared  those  who  killed  the  body.  She  will 
have,  in  years  to  come,  to  fear  evils  which  kill  the 
soul,  and  which  destroy  her  life. 

In  this  book  we  have  nothing  to  do  with  these  later 
times.  We  have  to  do  with  a  period  when  the  Church 
won  her  victories  against  the  State,  and  not  by  the 
aid  of  the  State.  Never,  as  it  seems,  was  there  a  time 
when  the  Church’s  triumphs  could  be  more  fairly 
ascribed  to  the  unassisted  truth.  The  Christians  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries  had  not  seen  Christ  or 
His  Apostles,  and  yet  they  believed,  and  spread  their 
belief  far  and  wide.  They  had  not,  commonly  at  any 
rate,  the  power  of  working  miracles  on  the  bodies  of 
men,  and  yet  they  worked  a  miraculous  change  on 
their  souls.  All  the  powers  of  the  world  were  arrayed 
against  them,  and  this  was  the  victory  which  overcame 
it — even  their  Faith. 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


27 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

/ 

How  was  the  mighty  work  accomplished  ?  That  is 
the  next  question  we  have  to  discuss.  Of  course 
Christians  are  quite  ready  with  their  answer.  The 
words  of  our  hymn  come  into  our  mind  at  once. 
We  think  of  the  great  army  with  its  blood-red  banner, 
and  Christ  at  the  head.  We  picture  our  soldiers 
conquering  by  suffering  and  death  through  His 
help. 

Mocked,  imprisoned,  stoned,  tormented, 

Sawn  asunder,  slain  with  sword, 

They  have  conquered  Death  and  Satan 
By  the  might  of  Christ  the  Lord. 

“  By  the  might  of  Christ  the  Lord.”  Yes,  that  was  the 
secret  of  the  triumph  of  the  Church  over  the  world. 
Christ  was  in  her ;  hence  her  might  and  hence  her 
victory.  The  Divine  Life  in  the  Church  was  not 
more  real  in  Apostolic  times  than  after  they  had  long 
fallen  on  sleep.  Christ’s  promise  remained  firm, 
“  Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world,”  and  therefore  was  the  victory  won. 

But  this  answer  though  true  is  not  complete.  “  By 
the  might  of  Christ  the  Lord  ”  has  been  the  secret  of 


28 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


the  triumph  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  of  her  history, 
whether  Apostolic,  Primitive,  Mediaeval,  or  Modern. 
Yet,  as  we  know,  Christ’s  might  has  been  manifest  in 
many  different  ways.  So  we  have  still  our  question 
to  answer.  We  want  to  know  how  the  Divine  energy 
was  exerted — what  human  means  was  employed  for 
the  great  end. 

The  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  had  in  early  times,  as 
in  the  present  day,  many  different  works,  and  many 
different  kinds  of  workmen. 

Her  great  work  then,  as  now,  was  the  conversion  of 
souls.  This  was  done,  not  so  much  by  the  reading 
as  by  the  telling  of  the  Gospel  story.1  Teachers  were 
many,  but  books  were  few.  This  oral  teaching  was 
given  not  to  great  assemblies,  but  to  individuals. 
Persecution  soon  put  a  stop  to  public  preaching. 
And  the  way  the  Christians  gained  a  hearing  and  a 
credence  for  this  individual  teaching  was  not  so  much 
by  the  power  of  working  miracles,  though  some  seem 
to  have  had  it ;  nor  by  their  pure  and  holy  lives, 
though  that  too  attracted  attention  ;  the  Christians 
gained  more  hearers  by  their  deaths  than  by  their 
miracles  or  by  their  lives.2  As  the  grass  from  the 
mowing,  so  sprung  up  the  Christians  with  fresh  vigour 
when  cut  down.3  From  the  scene  of  terrible  suffering 
patiently  borne,  the  heathen  went  away  predisposed  to 
learn  the  source  of  such  a  mighty  power  of  endurance, 
and  to  listen  to  the  story  of  the  Cross.  It  was  felt 

1  Still  notice  that  many  of  the  Apologists  were  converted  by 
the  reading  of  the  Scriptures. 

2  Tert.  ad  Scapulam,  c.  5  ;  Justin,  Apol.  ii.  12,  13. 

3  Tert.  Apol.  c.  50. 


THE  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH.  29 

that  such  heroes  must  be  in  possession  of  a  secret  of 
strength  hidden  from  the  rest  of  the  world. 

The  next  work  of  the  Church  was  to  build  up  souls 
in  the  most  Holy  Faith.  This  was  done  in  the  secret 
assemblies  for  worship,  which  met  at  dead  of  night, 
and  which  were  liable  at  any  moment  to  be  surprised, 
and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  were  often  surprised  by  the 
authorities  and  the  Roman  soldiers.1 2  With  their 
lives  in  their  hands,  the  Christians  came  to  these  to  be 
made  partakers  of  Christ  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word 
and  Sacraments.  At  these  was  the  reading  of  the 
Scriptures,  prayer,  thanksgiving,  giving  of  alms,  in¬ 
struction  and  exhortation,  administration  of  the 
Sacraments3 — in  early  times  the  Agape  or  Love 
Feast. 

But  the  Church  had  a  work  beyond  the  extension 
of  her  borders  and  the  intensifying  of  the  Divine 
Life  within  her  members.  She  had  to  vindicate  her 
position  in  the  eyes  of  men.  It  was  necessary  to  put 
before  the  world  generally,  and  the  State  authorities 
particularly,  what  Christianity  really  was.  Christianity 
was  a  new  religion,  in  length  of  duration  it  could  not 
compare  with  the  religions  of  the  gods  and  of  the 
nations.3  It  was  a  strange  religion,  quite  differing 
in  kind  from  any  other,  without  temples,  images,  altars, 
or  sacrifices,4  or  at  least  any  that  could  be  seen.5  It 
was  a  secret  religion,6  the  assemblies  were  at  night, 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  7. 

2  Justin  Martyr,  Apol.  i.  65-67  ;  Tert.  Apol.  c.  39. 

3  Ep.  ad  Diognetum,  c.  1  ;  Arnobius  adv.  Gentes,  ii.  67,  69. 

4  Origen  c.  Celsum,  vii.  62.  5  Octavius,  c.  10. 

6  Octavius,  c.  8,  9. 


30  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

and  none  but  its  baptized  members  were  admitted  to 
them.1  It  was  a  religion  spreading  every  day  amongst 
all  classes,  but  especially  amongst  the  women,  the 
ignorant,  and  the  criminal.2  It  was  a  religion  against 
which  accusations  of  the  most  serious  kind  were  made  ; 
the  Christians  were  accused  of  being  grossly  im 
moral,3  atheists,4  traitors  to  the  Emperor  and  the 
State,5  and  unprofitable  citizens.6  Even  if  these 
charges  were  not  true,  they  could  not  be  acquitted 
of  incredible  folly  and  of  being  led  away  by  a  wild 
enthusiasm.7 

It  was  evidently  quite  necessary  that  these  charges 
should  be  refuted.  The  Christians  were  bound  to 
remove  all  these  preliminary  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
their  success.  Before  the  heathen  could  be  con¬ 
verted  to  the  faith  of  Christ,  they  had  to  be  convinced 
that  the  Christians  were  not  immoral,  or  atheists,  or 
traitors.  They  had  to  be  shown  that  at  least  there 
was  some  ground  for  Christian  hope,  and  some  excuse 
for  what  seemed  to  be  incredible  folly.  So  a  class  of 
men  arose  commonly  called  Apologists,  that  is  to  say, 
Defenders  of  the  Faith,  who  made  it  their  business  to 
give  the  unconverted  heathen  some  true  notion  of 
Christianity,  to  give  them  just  that  superficial  view 
which  an  unbeliever  was  capable  of  taking.  Strike, 
if  strike  you  must,  say  these  men  to  the  heathen,  but 
hear  us  first.  Do  not  exterminate  us  from  off  the 

•  1  Just.  Apol.  i.  65,  66. 

2  Origen  c.  Celsum,  iii.  44, 49 ;  JustinMartyr,  Dialogue,  c.  1 1 7. 

3  Tert.  Apol.  c.  7,  39  ;  Octavius,  c.  9. 

4  Athenagoras,  Plea,  c.  3,  4.  5  Tert.  Apol.  c.  29,  35. 

6  Tert.  Apol.  c.  42.  7  Octavius,  c.  8,  12. 


THE  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH.  3 1 

face  of  the  earth  till  you  know  a  little  more  about  us.1 
Do  not  be  so  unjust  as  to  condemn  us  unheard.3 
You  punish  us  simply  for  being  Christians,  but  surely 
there  is  nothing  in  a  mere  name.3  You  have  vague 
ideas  we  are  very  wicked  people,  but  you  are  mis¬ 
taken,  our  lives  are  pure,  we  worship  God,  and  we 
are  loyal  to  the  Emperor.  Such  was  the  work  of  the 
Defenders  of  the  Faith;  their  object  is  not  to  teach 
truth,  but  to  prepare  the  way  for  teaching.  They  do 
not  prove  that  Christianity  is  true,  they  only  prove 
that  it  is  not  utterly  unreasonable  or  noxious.  They 
remove  stumbling-blocks  and  excite  curiosity.  In 
consequence,  they  rarely  quote  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
They  refer  to  them,  of  course,  constantly.  They 
speak  of  their  antiquity  as  extending  far  beyond  all 
other  books.  They  remark  on  their  purity,  contrast¬ 
ing  them  in  this  respect  with  the  legends  concerning 
the  heathen  gods.  They  describe  their  harmony  and 
simplicity,  contrasting  them  here  with  the  hard  and 
contradictory  utterances  of  the  philosophers.  They 
assert  the  fulfilment  of  prophecies  of  undoubted 
antiquity,  in  the  life  of  Christ  and  the  establishment 
of  His  religion.  But  they  do  not  appeal  to  them  as 
authoritative.  The  heathen,  for  the  most  part,  had 
never  seen  them,  and  if  they  had,  did  not  believe  in 
them.  The  Apologies  are  written  to  conciliate  enemies, 
and  so  the  arguments  are  such  as  he  would  allow. 

The  Apologists,  or  Defenders  of  the  Faith,  are  then 
men  living  in  the  2nd  and  3rd  centuries,  who  give  the 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  1,  3.  2  Just.  Apol.  ii.  c.  2,  3. 

3  Athenagoras,  Plea,  c.  I,  2. 


32  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

heathen  true  notions  concerning  Christianity.  The 
earliest  of  them  lived  when  persecution  was  just 
beginning.  Quadratus  and  Aristides  presented 
apologies  to  the  Emperor  Hadrian  about  the  year 
120  a.d.  Neither  of  these  books  is  now  extant; 
but  Eusebius  tells  us  concerning  Aristides,1  that  he 
was  a  man  faithfully  devoted  to  the  religion  we 
profess,  and  that  his  work  had  been  preserved  by 
many  up  to  his  days.  And  with  respect  to  Quadratus, 
he  says  that  he  wrote  because  certain  malicious 
persons  attempted  to  harass  our  brethren,  and  that 
his  work,  still  existing,  gave  evident  proofs  of  the 
understanding  and  the  apostolic  faith  of  the  writer. 
Quadratus  was  able  to  appeal  to  the  testimony  of 
those  who  had  seen  the  men  on  whom  Christ’s 
healing  power  had  been  exerted.  Some  of  these 
had  lived  even  to  his  times. 

The  last  Defender  was  Lactantius.  He  outlived 
the  times  of  persecution,  and  wrote  ‘an  account  of 
the  deaths  of  the  last  persecutors.  He  was  tutor  to 
the  son  of  the  first  Christian  emperor,  and  from  his 
eloquence  he  was  honoured  with  the  title  of  the 
Christian  Cicero.2 

The  Defenders  of  the  Faith  in  the  2nd  century 
were  philosophers,  and  wrote  in  Greek.  The  De¬ 
fenders  of  the  Faith  in  the  3rd  century  were  Africans 
by  country,  lawyers  or  rhetoricians  by  profession,  and 
wrote  in  Latin. 

Some  of  the  Defences  were  intended  to  advocate 
the  Christian  cause  before  emperors  and  rulers  of 


1  Eus.  Hist.  Ecd.  iv.  3. 


2  Jerome  ad  Paul.  Ep.  xlix. 


THE  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


33 


the  provinces.  Thus  Quadratus  and  Aristides  ad¬ 
dressed  Hadrian;  Justin  Martyr — Antoninus  Pius; 
Athenagoras,  Melito,  and  Apollinaris — Marcus  Aure¬ 
lius  ;  Tertullian  and  Cyprian — African  governors. 
Others  were  addressed  to  private  persons  or  the 
public  generally.  Thus  Theophilus  of  Antioch  wrote 
three  letters  to  Autolycus,  a  heathen.  Tatian  ad¬ 
dressed  the  Greeks ;  Tertullian  and  Arnobius,  the 
nations;  Justin  Martyr,  the  Jews.  More  commonly 
the  Defence  is  made  against  popular  clamour  and 
to  remove  all  pretexts  for  persecutions  ;  but  one  book, 
the  “  Defence  of  Origen,”  is  a  reply  to  a  book  called 
“  The  True  Word,”  an  attack  on  Christianity  written 
by  the  philosopher  Celsus. 

When  we  come  to  inquire  what  results  these  books 
produced,  we  find  very  slight  material  for  forming  an 
opinion.  Antoninus  Pius  is  said  to  have  put  a  stop 
to  persecution  after  reading  Justin’s  Apology,  but  the 
story  is  of  doubtful  truth.1  Like  most  other  Christian 
work,  the  work  done  by  the  Defenders  of  the  Faith 
is  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  men.  Still,  it  must  not 
be  denied,  that  books  had  not  the  great  influence 
then  they  have  now.  Every  single  copy  had  to  be 
made  by  hand.2  Some  of  the  greatest  works  only 
existed  in  one  copy.  But  this  we  may  say  with  con¬ 
fidence,  whatever  good  the  works  of  the  Apologists 
did  the  Christian  cause  in  their  day,  they  will  certainly 
do  us  great  good  in  our  day.  They  give  us  such  a 

1  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  12,  13. 

2  Still,  slave  labour  was  plentiful  and  cheap.  Cf.  ‘  Church 
Quarterly  Review,’  MSS.  and  Miniatures,  vol.  v.  p.  451. 

D 


34  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

wonderful  picture  of  Christian  life  and  the  Christian 
society  in  those  early  times  ;  and  they  convince  us 
of  the  mighty  works  which  may  be  wrought  by  those 
who  with  all  their  heart  and  soul  trust  in  Christ  the 
Lord. 

The  Defenders  of  the  Faith  give  us  a  picture  of 
the  darkness  which  covered  the  earth,  and  the 
gross  darkness  which  covered  the  peoples,  before  the 
true  Light  came  into  the  world.  Then  they  picture 
to  us  Light  and  Darkness  struggling  together,  and 
little  by  little  the  Light  conquering,  and  shining  more 
and  more  unto  the  perfect  day.  We  need  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  those  who,  with  enlightened  eyes,  saw  the 
darkness  before  the  dawn,  to  tell  us  how  great  that 
darkness  was.  It  was  a  shame  even  to  speak  of  those 
things  which  were  done  of  the  heathen,  not  only  in 
secret  but  in  public,  not  only  in  their  games  and 
shows,  but  also  at  their  most  solemn  religious  festivals, 
and  in  the  temples  of  their  gods.  The  Defenders  of 
the  Faith  tell  us  of  this,  and  they  tell  us,  too,  how 
Christianity  came  into  a  dark  and  corrupt  world 
and  brought  with  it  new  light  and  life.  Old  bonds 
were  being  dissolved,  but  Christianity  established  a 
new  brotherhood,  of  whose  members  it  was  said 
that  they  loved  one  another  even  before  they  knew 
one  another.1  Men  were  enslaved  by  their  lusts  and 
passions,  but  those  whom  Christ  set  free  were  free 
indeed.  The  world  was  without  hope  beyond  the 
grave ;  Christians  despised  death  in  the  certainty  of 
a  happy  resurrection. 


1  Octavius,  c.  9. 


THE  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH.  35 

Thus  the  Defenders  of  the  Faith  tell  us  what  a 
power  Christianity  has,  and  wherein  that  power  con¬ 
sists.  We,  in  our  day,  as  we  know,  have  the  same 
source  of  strength  that  they  had.  When  we  read 
what  they  did,  we  rise  comforted  with  the  thought  that 
Christ’s  grace  is  sufficient  for  us  also.  If  the  Roman 
Empire  could  not  destroy  the  Church  in  its  infancy, 
no  action  of  the  State  can  destroy  the  Church  in  its 
mature  strength. 

And  now  let  us  consider  our  subject  more  par¬ 
ticularly  in  four  chapters.  The  Christians  were 
attacked,  and  the  Apologists  defended  them ;  so  the 
first  chapter  will  be  The  Defence.  As  we  learn  from 
military  tactics,  no  army  can  be  successful  which 
stands  only  on  the  defensive,  and  the  Christians,  we 
know,  had  to  wage  an  aggressive  war ;  so  the  Apolo¬ 
gists  in  their  turn  made  an  attack  on  the  heathen 
religion  and  philosophy ;  hence  the  second  chapter 
will  be  The  Attack.  Besides  this,  the  Apologists 
give  us,  by  the  way,  much  interesting  information 
concerning  themselves  and  their  religion;  so  the  third 
chapter  will  be  Christians  and  Christianity.  Lastly, 
leaving  Apologetic  literature  as  a  whole,  we  shall 
consider  the  different  Apologies  with  their  Authors 
separately ;  so  our  fourth  and  fifth  chapters  will  be 
The  Latin  and  Greek  Apologists  and  their  Apologies. 


d  2 


36 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  DEFENCE. 

Three  kinds  of  charges  were  brought  against  the 
Christians  by  the  heathen — Moral,  Theological,  and 
Political.  It  was  said  they  lived  immoral  lives  ;  that 
they  had  no  religion,  or  a  bad  one,  or  at  least  an 
illegal  one ;  that  they  were  traitors  to  the  Emperor, 
and  enemies  of  the  public  good.  The  first  two 
excited  the  popular  hatred,  and  were  the  causes  of 
the  tumultuous  risings;  the  last  furnished  the  subject- 
matter  of  the  legal  charge  when  they  were  brought 
before  the  courts. 

The  charge  of  Immorality  seems,  at  first,  to  have 
been  the  most  prominent :  it  sprung,  no  doubt, 
from  the  suspicious  jealousy  with  which  the  secret 
meetings  of  the  Christians  were  viewed.  The  perse¬ 
cutions  rendered  it  necessary  that  the  Christian 
worship  should  be  conducted  in  secret  and  by  night. 
Before  the  light,  as  Pliny  tells  us,1  the  Christians  met 
together  in  prayer  to  Christ.  The  heathen  husband, 
whilst  it  was  yet  dark,  missed  his  wife  from  his  side, 
and  vaguely  suspected  evil.2  Arguing  from  the  heathen 
rites,  it  was  thought  that  the  Christian  mysteries  must 
be  impure.  Rumour  soon  gave  shape  to  vague  sus- 

Pliny’s  letter  to  Trajan. 


i 


2  Tert.  ad  Uxorem,  ii.  4. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


37 


picion.  “  About  the  modest  supper-room  of  the 
Christians/’  says  Tertullian,  “a  great  ado  is  made.”  1 
The  ceremony  of  initiation  into  the  society,  it  was 
said,  was  an  abominable  crime.3  The  neophyte  was 
caused  to  stab  unawares  an  infant  to  death,  and  then 
all,  in  greedy  haste,  tore  it  limb  from  limb  and 
devoured  it.  The  feasting  was  carried  to  excess.  At 
a  given  signal  the  light  was  put  out  and  all  indulged 
in  promiscuous  lust.  Origen  tells  us  the  Jews  were 
the  authors  of  these  charges3 — a  thing  likely  enough 
in  itself ;  but  whether  this  was  so  or  not,  it  is  easy  to 
see  the  foundation  in  fact  for  the  calumny.  The 
heathen  had  heard  of  the  Eucharistic  food  of  the 
Body  and  Blood  of  Christ,  and  of  the  love-feasts.  To 
the  first  they  would  be  incapable  of  giving  a  spiritual 
significance ;  the  second  had  but  one  meaning  to  an 
impure  imagination ;  love  and  lust  were,  alas  !  to  the 
heathen  of  the  day,  almost  interchangeable  terms.  Re¬ 
ligious  ceremonies  and  gross  immoralities  were  closely 
connected  in  his  experience.  Purity  was  so  rare  that  he 
disbelieved  in  its  existence.  Outward  self-restraint  was, 
in  his  idea,  only  a  cloak  to  secret  immorality  :  hence 
he  distorted  the  love-feasts  into  licentious  orgies,  and 
the  feeding  on  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  into 
murdering  and  devouring  an  infant. 

For  these  charges,4  Tertullian  assures  us,  the 
heathen  had  lying  rumour  as  their  only  witness  ; 
and  yet  the  secret  of  the  Christian  meetings  was  by 
no  means  well  kept.  He  says,5  “  We  are  daily  beset 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  39.  2  Octavius,  c.  9. 

3  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  vi.  27;  see  also  Just.  Dial.  c.  17. 

4  Tert.  Apol.  c.  7.  6  lb. 


38 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


by  foes,  we  are  daily  betrayed ;  we  are  ofttimes  sur¬ 
prised  in  our  meetings  and  congregations.  And  yet,” 
he  asks,  “who  has  ever  happened  on  an  infant  wailing? 
Who  has  found  any  trace  of  uncleanness  in  his  wife  ? 
Where  is  the  man  who,  when  he  had  discovered  such 
atrocities,  concealed  them,  or,  whilst  dragging  the 
guilty  before  the  judge,  was  bribed  to  silence  ?”  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  authorities  from  time  to  time 
did  their  best  to  procure  evidence,  and  failed.1  Pliny 
investigated  the  nature  of  the  Christian  society  in  a 
thorough  manner.  He  had  no  liking  for  it,  quite 
the  reverse ;  it  was,  in  his  eyes,  “  an  absurd  and 
immoderate  superstition.”  The  Christians  were  pos¬ 
sessed  with  “infatuation”;  they  were  filled  with  “a 
contumacious  and  inflexible  obstinacy.”  But  this 
is  the  worst  he  has  to  say.  He  searched,  but  could 
not  find  any  basis  for  a  criminal  charge.  He  ques¬ 
tioned  apostates,  and  they  were  quite  willing,  for  their 
own  safety,  to  revile  the  name  of  Christ;  but  even 
they  did  not  venture  to  blacken  the  fair  fame  of  the 
Christians.  Their  evidence  went  no  further  than  this, 
that  the  Christians  were  wont  to  assemble  together 
before  day,  for  prayer  to  Christ ;  for  binding  all  to¬ 
gether,  by  a  solemn  sacrament,  to  abstain  from  all 
kinds  of  sin ;  and  for  eating  a  harmless  meal.  Two 
deaconesses  fell  into  Pliny’s  hands,  and  he  put  them  to 
the  torture,  but  he  could  get  nothing  out  of  them  to 
his  purpose.  The  conclusion  he  comes  to  is  this  :  the 
Christians  are  superstitious,  they  are  obstinate,  they 
will  not  obey  the  laws,  but  they  are  not  criminal.  In 

1  Justin  (Apol.  ii.  c.  12)  says  that  some  female  slaves  were 
forced  by  torture  to  confess  the  charge. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


39 


fact,  Pliny’s  report  to  Trajan  might  be  summed  up  in 
the  words,  “  I  can  find  no  occasion  against  these  men, 
except  I  find  it  against  them  concerning  the  law  of 
their  God.” 

Pliny’s  investigation  was  made  at  the  beginning  of 
the  second  century7,  in  Bithynia.  About  fifty  years 
afterwards  a  violent  persecution  broke  out  in  Gaul. 
Reports  of  the  vile  doings  of  the  Christians  had  been 
circulated  amongst  the  common  people  until  they 
were  goaded  to  madness.  Vettius  Epagathus,  a  young 
man  of  blameless  life,  was  refused  a  hearing  when 
he  undertook  to  show,  on  behalf  of  his  brethren, 
that  nothing  impious  was  done  amongst  them.  Was 
he  a  Christian  ?  the  governor  asked.  He  was.  That 
was  sufficient ;  his  mouth  was  stopped,  and  he  was 
numbered  amongst  the  martyrs.1 

The  heathen  slaves  of  Christian  martyrs  were  ap¬ 
prehended  ;  they  saw  their  masters  suffering,  and, 
in  fear  for  themselves,  falsely  accused  them  of  un¬ 
natural  crimes.  Then,  as  our  account  runs,  “  When 
the  rumour  of  these  accusations  was  spread  abroad, 
all  raged  against  us  like  wild  beasts ;  so  that  if  any 
formerly  were  temperate  in  their  conduct  to  us  on 
account  of  relationship,  they  then  became  exceedingly 
indignant  and  exasperated  against  us.  And  thus  was 
fulfilled  that  which  was  spoken  by  our  Lord  :  “  The 
time  shall  come  when  every  one  who  slayeth  you 
shall  think  that  he  offereth  service  to  God.”  a 

The  threat  of  torture  had  been  sufficient  to  cause 
the  heathen  slaves  to  accuse  their  masters.  Its  ap- 


1  Eus.  Eccl.  Hist.  v.  i. 


2  lb. 


40 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


plication  was  not  sufficient  to  extort  a  confession  from 
the  Christians  themselves  ;  and  yet,  we  are  told,  they 
suffered  pains  beyond  description,  Satan  striving 
eagerly  that  some  of  the  evil  reports  might  be  ac¬ 
knowledged  by  them. 

Sanctus,  a  deacon,  nobly  endured  all  the  sufferings 
that  man  could  devise,  and  had  but  one  word  on  his 
lips,  “  I  am  a  Christian.”  His  body,  with  wounds, 
lost  human  shape,  but  in  him  Christ  wrought  great 
wonders;  showing  to  the  rest  that  there  is  nothing 
fearful  where  there  is  the  Father’s  love,  and  nothing 
painful  where  there  is  Christ’s  glory. 

For  Blandina,  a  weak  slave,  all — even  her  Chris¬ 
tian  mistress — feared ;  but  she  baffled  her  tormentors 
though  they  did  their  worst,  and  in  the  midst  of  all 
her  sufferings  she  found  strength,  and  refreshment, 
and  insensibility  to  pain,  in  saying,  “I  am  a  Christian, 
and  there  is  no  evil  done  amongst  us.” 

One  more  faithful  witness — the  most  faithful  of  all. 
All  had  not  stood  firm ;  some  had  by  their  conduct 
caused  evil  reports  and  were  sons  of  perdition,  but 
others  were  won  back  again  by  the  martyrs’  prayers. 
One  of  these  latter  was  Biblias.  “The  devil,”  such 
is  the  account,  “  thinking  he  had  already  swallowed 
her,  and  wishing  to  damn  her  still  more  by  making 
her  accuse  (the  brethren)  falsely,  brought  her  forth  to 
punishment,  and  employed  force  to  constrain  her, 
already  feeble  and  spiritless,  to  utter  accusations  of 
atheism  against  us.  But  she,  in  the  midst  of  the 
tortures,  came  again  to  a  sound  state  of  mind,  and 
awoke,  as  it  were,  out  of  a  deep  sleep,  for  the  tem¬ 
porary  punishment  reminded  her  of  the  eternal  punish- 


THE  DEFENCE. 


41 


ment  in  hell ;  and  she  contradicted  the  accusers  of 
Christians,  saying,  ‘  How  can  children  be  eaten  by 
those  who  do  not  think  it  lawful  to  partake  even  of 
the  blood  of  brute  beasts?’  And  after  this  she  con¬ 
fessed  herself  a  Christian,  and  was  added  to  the 
number  of  martyrs.” 

And  so  the  devil’s  craft,  as  we  see,  betrayed  him ; 
and  Christ  rescued  from  his  jaws  one  that  was  ready 
to  go  down  into  the  pit ;  and  the  Christians  gained  a 
testimony  not  to  be  gainsayed.  The  deacon’s  testi¬ 
mony  was  strong,  the  slave’s  still  stronger,  but  the 
testimony  of  her  who  had  fallen  was  strongest  of  all. 
What  could  have  raised  the  fallen  one  but  the  power 
of  Christ  working  in  her  mightily?  The  witness 
extorted  by  suffering  must  have  been  for  once  the 
witness  of  truth. 

It  is  interesting  to  learn  that  God  honoured  His 
martyrs  in  the  eyes  of  men.  Those  who  stood  firm 
suffered  as  Christians,  and  were  not  ashamed.  Those 
who  apostatized  suffered  as  murderers  and  profligates, 
and  were  tormented  by  their  guilty  conscience.  The 
one  came  forth  to  their  execution  like  “  brides  going 
to  their  bridal”;  the  others  were  downcast,  and  hum¬ 
bled,  and  weighed  down  with  every  kind  of  disgrace. 

The  Apologists  pointed  to  such  scenes  as  these, 
and  asked,  Is  it  possible  that  men  who  die  as  you 
see  they  do,  can  live  as  you  say  they  do  ?  1  In  truth, 
the  deaths  of  the  Christians  were  a  convincing  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  purity  of  their  Christian  lives.  A  life  of 
self-indulgence  is  not  a  preparation  for  a  martyr’s 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  50;  Juslin  Martyr,  ii.  12. 


42 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


death.  But  those  who  were  ever  crucifying  the  flesh 
with  its  affections  and  lusts  after  a  spiritual  manner, 
were  the  men  likely  in  the  moment  of  trial  to  endure 
bravely  the  most  dreadful  suffering.  One  of  the 
Apologists,  Justin  Martyr,  saw  the  force  of  this  argu¬ 
ment,  whilst  still  a  heathen.  He  tells  us,1  that  when 
he  “was  delighting  in  the  doctrines  of  Plato,  and 
heard  the  Christians  slandered,  and  saw  them  fear¬ 
less  of  death  and  of  all  other  things  which  are  counted 
to  be  fearful,  he  perceived  it  was  impossible  that  they 
could  be  living  in  wickedness  and  pleasure.  For  what 
sensual  or  intemperate  man,  or  who  that  counts  it 
good  to  feast  on  human  flesh,  could  welcome  death, 
that  he  might  be  deprived  of  his  enjoyments,  and 
would  not  rather  continue  always  the  present  life?  ” 
The  Apologists  appeal  not  only  to  Christian  deaths 
but  to  Christian  lives  in  defending  themselves  against 
this  charge.2  They  were  able  to  point  to  the  change 
which  Christianity  had  effected  in  the  lives  of  many. 
Tertullian  says  that  the  remarks  used  to  be  made, 
“  What  a  woman  she  was  !  how  wanton,  how  gay ! 
What  a  youth  he  was !  how  profligate,  how  lustful ! 
They  have  become  Christians !  So  the  hated  name 
is  given  to  a  reformation  of  character.”  3  And  then 
he  tells  us  further,  that  the  heathen  hated  Christianity 
more  than  they  loved  goodness.  The  chaste  Chris¬ 
tian  wife,  and  the  obedient  Christian  son,  and  the 
faithful  Christian  servant,  fared  worse  after  their 
reformation  than  beforetime  in  their  wickedness. 

1  Just.  Apol.  ii.  12. 

2  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  i.  9  ;  Just.  Apol.  i.  14,  ii.  2. 

3  Apol.  c.  3. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


43 


The  prisons  were  often  full  of  Christians,  but  their 
Christianity  was  their  only  crime.  Christian  names 
were  not  to  be  found  in  'the  list  of  criminals.  “  It 
is  always,”  the  same  writer  says  in  another  place,1 
‘‘with  your  folk  the  prison  is  teeming,  the  mines  are 
sighing,  the  wild  beasts  are  fed  ;  it  is  from  you  the 
exhibiters  of  gladiatorial  shows  always  get  their  herd 
of  criminals  to  feed  up  for  the  occasion.  You  find  no 
Christian  there,  except  simply  as  being  such  ;  or  if  one 
be  there  in  any  other  capacity,  a  Christian  he  is  no 
longer.” 

Tertullian  shows  also2  how  it  is  the  Christians  were 
so  free  from  crime.  Their  morality  was  based  on 
their  religion ;  their  moral  sense  had  been  educated 
by  a  Divine  Teacher;  their  moral  code  had  been 
taught  them  by  Divine  lips ;  and  they  expected  to  be 
judged  by  a  Divine  Judge.  Eternal  punishment,  they 
believed,  was  due  for  sin ;  eternal  life  was  the  reward 
of  goodness.  Moreover,  the  commandment  which 
had  been  laid  upon  them  was  exceeding  wide  ; 
it  reached  even  to  the  words  of  the  lips  and  the 
thoughts  of  the  heart.  So  far  from  injuring  another, 
they  patiently  suffered  injury  themselves  ;  so  far 
from  killing  another,  they  were  forbidden  even  to 
be  angry.  A  Christian  could  not,  like  a  philosopher, 
teach  one  thing  and  do  another.  He  could  not 
promulgate  a  code  of  morals,  and  not  live  up  to  it. 
Unless  he  were  a  Christian  in  deed,  he  ceased 
forthwith  to  be  a  Christian  in  name. 

Perhaps  this  charge  could  hardly  have  been  so 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  44. 


2  lb.  c.  45. 


44 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


widely  believed  without  some  basis  of  truth,  and 
there  is  good  reason  for  thinking  that  some  of  the 
heretics  brought  discredit  on  the  Christian  name. 
The  Gnostics  taught  that  matter,  i.e.  the  stuff  of 
which  the  world  generally,  and  so  the  human  body, 
was  composed,  was  the  principle  of  evil ;  and  the 
question  with  them  was,  how  to  keep  their  higher 
nature  uncorrupted  by  contact  with  it.  One  of 
their  two  theories  was,  “  Do  absolutely  as  you 
please ;  follow  your  own  impulses ;  don’t  give  the 
subject  a  thought,  it  is  not  worth  the  trouble.  Nothing 
your  body  can  do  can  have  any  influence  upon  your 
spirit.”  With  such  a  theory  we  are  prepared  to  hear 
that  the  Gnostics  led  a  licentious  life.  Irenseus  tells 
us,1  “  that  they  had  been  sent  by  Satan  to  bring  dis¬ 
honour  upon  the  Church ;  so  that  men  hearing  what 
they  say,  may  turn  away  from  the  preaching  of  the 
truth  ;  and  seeing  what  they  practise,  may  speak  evil 
of  us  all,  who  in  fact  have  no  fellowship  with  them, 
either  in  doctrine,  or  in  morals,  or  in  daily  life.” 
Eusebius  2  distinctly  traces  the  “  impious  and  absurd 
suspicions”  against  the  Christians  to  the  Gnostic 
theory  and  practice.  They  taught,  he  tells  us,  “  that 
the  basest  deeds  should  be  perpetrated  by  those  that 
would  arrive  at  perfection  in  the  mysteries”;  and  the 
consequence  was,  “  to  the  unbelieving  Gentiles  they 
offered  scope  to  slander  the  truth  of  God,  as  the 
report  proceeding  from  them  extended  with  its  infamy 
to  the  whole  body  of  Christians.” 

The  Gnostic  heresy,  though  in  the  2nd  century  it 


1  Iren.  User.  i.  25,  3. 


2  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  7. 


45 


THE  DEFENCE. 

had  spread  far  and  wide,  was  not  of  long  duration. 
With  it  were  extinguished,  Eusebius1  tells  us,  all  the 
aspersions  on  our  religion.  When  he  wrote,  2  the  old 
calumnies  were  dropped  by  all.  Still,  under  Maximin, 
only  a  little  before,  the  old  charges  were  revived.3 
In  Damascus  some  harlots  were  forced  by  the  gov¬ 
ernor  into  making  a  declaration  that  they  had  once 
been  Christians,  and  had  been  witnesses  of  their 
wickedness.  These  confessions  were  engraved  on 
brazen  tablets,  and  were  published  all  over  the  empire. 
Besides  this,  acts  of  Pilate,  full  of  blasphemy  against 
Christ,  were  forged  ;4  and  then,  by  an  imperial  edict, 
all  schoolmasters  were  provided  with  copies,  and  it 
was  expressly  enjoined  that  every  boy  should  learn 
the  lies  by  heart.  Just  then,  “the  devil  had  great 
wrath,  knowing  that  he  had  but  a  short  time.” 
Within  a  year  the  devil  was  chained. 

When  persecutors  were  reduced  for  evidence  to 
such  straits  as  we  have  described,  it  is  plain  how  little 
occasion  had  been  given  to  the  adversary  to  speak 
reproachfully.  Indeed,  it  may  be  fairly  said,  that  at 
no  time  was  this  charge  believed  in  by  intelligent 
heathens.5  Certainly  it  was  not  believed  in  by  the 
emperors  Trajan  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  as  their  edicts 
published  after  inquiry  show.6  The  common  people 
believed  in  it,  no  doubt ;  rumour  and  garbled  quota¬ 
tions  were  sufficient  for  them,  and  very  likely  their 

1  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  J.  2  330  a.d.  circa. 

3  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  ix.  5.  4  lb.  ix.  7. 

5  Justin,  in  his  Dialogue  with  Trypho  (c.  x. ),  puts  into  the 
mouth  of  his  Jew  a  confession  that  the  charges  were  false. 

6  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iii.  33  ;  v.  1. 


46 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


belief  was  encouraged  by  the  authorities  as  useful. 
But  Roman  governors  knew, — aye,  and  acted  on  their 
knowledge,  that  there  was  one  thing  more  terrible  to 
a  Christian  woman  than  death  itself.1  In  the  Dio¬ 
cletian  persecution  it  was  common  to  send  Christian 
virgins  to  the  houses  of  shame.  The  persecutors 
knew  that  a  taint  on  Christian  purity  was  more  terrible 
than  any  punishment  or  any  death.  Surely  enough 
has  now  been  said  on  this  subject ;  it  would  be  well 
indeed  if  Christ’s  Church  could  refute  all  the  accusa¬ 
tions  made  against  her  members  as  triumphantly  as 
this. 

We  pass  on  to  the  second  charge  made  against  the 
Christians — the  religious  one.  It  was  said  that  they 
were  either  worshippers  of  monstrous  things,  or  that 
they  were  atheists  and  had  no  God  at  all.  Here,  too, 
the  imagination  of  the  heathen  seems  to  have  been 
their  chief  witness. 

A  common  theory  was  that  they  worshipped  the 
head  of  an  ass.  Tacitus,  according  to  Tertullian,2 
was  the  first  to  put  the  notion  into  people’s  minds. 
He  records  a  tradition  that  the  Jews  in  their 
“  exodus  ”  were  saved  from  perishing  from  thirst  by 
wild  asses,  and  that  in  their  gratitude  they  conse¬ 
crated  a  head  of  that  animal  to  be  their  god. 
Arguing  from  the  connection  of  Judaism  and 
Christianity,  the  heathen  supposed  the  Christians 
worshipped  an  ass’s  head  also.  A  little  before  Ter- 
tullian’s  time,  an  apostate  Jew,  a  man  who  hired  him¬ 
self  out  to  fight  with  wild  beasts,  carried  about  through 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  50. 


2  Apol.  c.  1 6. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


47 


the  streets  of  Rome  a  caricature  of  the  God  of  the 
Christians.1  He  was  depicted  as  having  the  ears  of 
an  ass,  hoofed  in  one  foot,  carrying  a  book,  and 
wearing  a  toga.  And  the  crowd,  we  are  told,  believed 
the  infamous  Jew. 

Others  said  they  worshipped  the  Sun.2  Perhaps 
there  were  two  reasons  for  this  charge.  Sunday  was 
the  chief  day  of  worship  for  the  Christians,  and  they 
turned  to  the  east  whilst  they  said  their  prayers. 

Others  were  convinced  that  they  worshipped  the 
Cross.3  Possibly  the  reason  for  this  was,  that  the 
Christians  were  seen  constantly  to  sign  themselves 
with  this  sign.4 

The  Emperor  Hadrian  confounded  them  with  the 
worshippers  of  the  Egyptian  god  Serapis.5  To  him, 
in  his  attachment  to  the  old  Roman  and  Greek  reli¬ 
gions,  all  foreign  religions  were  alike. 

The  martyrs’  bodies,  rescued  at  such  risk,  and 
buried  with  such  care,  were  thought  by  some  to  be 
the  objects  of  their  worship.  Polycarp’s  body  was 
burnt  lest  they  should  abandon  “  The  Crucified  ”  and 
worship  him.6  For  the  same  reasons  the  bodies  of 
some  slaves  martyred  during  the  Diocletian  persecu¬ 
tion  were  cast  into  the  sea.7 

The  Apologists,  in  dealing  with  these  charges,  often 
wax  sarcastic.8  Pretty  fellows  you  heathens  are,  to 
make  any  objection  to  our  objects  of  worship  !  Were 

1  Ad  Nationes,  i.  14. 

2  Tert.  Apol.  c.  16.  3  lb.  4  Tert.  de  Corona,  §  3 

5  See  Neander,  Church  Hist.  i.  141,  142. 

6  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  iv.  15.  7  lb.  viii.  6. 

8  Tert.  Apol.  c.  16  ;  Ad  Nat.  i.  II. 


43 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


all  you  say  of  us  true,  we  should  be  much  better  than 
you.  Why  should  you  object  to  our  worship  of  an 
ass’s  head?  You  have  gods  with  the  heads  of  dogs 
and  lions,  and  the  horns  of  bucks  and  rams,  and  the 
loins  of  goats,  and  the  legs  of  serpents,  and  wings 
sprouting  from  the  back  or  foot.  You  say  we  are 
devoted  to  asses  ;  but  you  must  confess  that  you  are 
worshippers  of  cattle  of  all  kinds.  You  say  we  worship 
the  Sun  ;  many  of  you  worship  all  the  heavenly  bodies 
and  the  clouds.1  You  say  we  worship  the  Cross  ; 
you  undoubtedly  worship  your  military  standards.2 

It  may  have  been  injudicious  to  retort  thus  sharply 
whilst  making  a  plea  for  permission  to  exist ;  but, 
policy  apart,  the  reply  is  effective  enough. 

Probably  the  charge  of  atheism  was  more  popular 
and  more  seriously  believed  in  than  any  of  the  above. 
Men  so  well  hated  as  the  Christians,  were  sure  to  be 
attacked  by  scandalous  reports  not  half-believed. 
But  the  charge  of  atheism  seemed  to  rest  on  a  good 
foundation;  for  the  Christians  had,  or  seemed  to  have, 
none  of  those  accessories  of  worship  used  by  all  other 
religions.  Certainly  the  charge  made  the  common 
people  hate  them  more  intensely. 

The  position  of  the  common  people  with  respect 
to  their  religion  was  in  some  points  very  similar  to 
the  position  of  many  people  now.  When  all  went 
well  they  did  not  trouble  themselves  much  about  it ; 
but  when  misfortune  came  they  were  filled  with  guilty 
fears.  In  prosperous  times  they  were  wont  to  offer  in 
sacrifice  worn  out,  scabbed,  and  corrupting  animals  ; 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  16.  ’  \)\ 


THE  DEFENCE. 


49 

or  they  would  cut  off  the  head  and  the  hoofs — the 
portion  assigned  to  the  slaves  and  dogs — and  offer 
them  upon  the  altars.1  Tragic  and  comic  writers  did 
not  shrink  from  setting  forth  the  gods  as  the  origin  of 
all  family  calamities  and  sins.  Men  had  no  objection 
to  making  merry  over  the  story  of  their  weaknesses 
and  crimes  ;2  dramatic  literature  pictured  their  vile¬ 
ness  ;  and  when  their  majesty  was  thus  insulted 
and  their  deity  dishonoured,  the  world  applauded. 
Even  the  sanctity  of  the  temples  was  not  respected,  they 
were  convenient  places  for  the  most  licentious  deeds.3 
But  when  disasters  came — as  in  the  second  century 
they  constantly  did — then  superstitious  fear  filled  the 
hearts  of  all.4  It  was  said  at  once,  the  gods  are  angry 
because  their  temples  have  been  deserted  and  their 
rites  neglected.5  At  such  times  the  Christians  were  a 
convenient  scapegoat.5  Public  religious  ceremonies, 
rain-sacrifices,  barefoot  processions,  were  enjoined ; 
and  in  these  the  Christians  would  take  no  part.  Then 
there  were  popular  risings,  all  forms  of  law  were  set 
at  nought,  and  this  to  such  an  extent  that  the  autho¬ 
rities  had  to  interfere.  Tertullian  tells  us  that  the 
heathen  thought  the  Christians  the  cause  of  every 
public  disaster  and  affliction.  If,  he  says,  the  Tiber 
rises  as  high  as  the  city  walls,  if  the  Nile  does  not 
send  its  waters  over  the  fields,  if  the  heavens  give  no 
rain,  if  there  is  an  earthquake,  if  there  is  a  famine  or 
pestilence,  straightway  the  cry  is,  "  Away  with  the 
Christians  to  the  lion.”  It  was  Nero  who  set  the 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  14. 
3  Tert.  Apol.  c.  15. 
5  Tert.  Apol.  c.  40. 


E 


2  Arnobius,  iv.  33-36. 
*  Arn.  i.  24. 


50  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

fashion  of  ascribing  calamities  to  the  Christians ;  and 
his  example  in  this  respect  was  constantly  followed  in 
later  times.  The  martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  seems  to  have  followed  on  a  destructive 
earthquake.  The  persecutions  under  Antoninus  Pius, 
Marcus  Aurelius,  and  Diocletian,  followed  after  vari¬ 
ous  public  calamities — pestilences,  inundations,  earth¬ 
quakes,  and  fires.  Maximin  boasted  that  his  perse¬ 
cution  of  the  Christians  had  brought  back  again  to  the 
world  long-lost  abundance,  peace,  and  health.1  So 
prevalent  indeed  was  the  idea  that  the  Christians  were 
the  guilty  causes  of  the  calamities  of  the  times,  that 
many  of  the  Apologists  set  themselves  to  show  that 
there  was  no  real  connection  between  them.  For  the 
most  part  the  Apologists  deal  with  this  matter  by 
pointing  out  that  national  disasters  occurred  long 
before  Christians  were  known,  and  that  the  times  are 
not  so  bad  after  all.2  Seasons  of  scarcity  are  relieved 
by  times  of  plenty,  disasters  in  war  are  compensated 
for  by  victories  and  successes. 

“  It  is  three  hundred  years,”  says  Arnobius,3  “  since 
we  Christians  began  to  exist.  Have  wars  been  in¬ 
cessant  ?  Have  the  crops  always  failed  ?  Has  there 
never  been  peace  and  plenty  on  the  earth  ?  On  the 
contrary,  there  have  often  been  the  most  plentiful 
yields  of  grain  and  seasons  of  cheapness.  Victories 
innumerable  have  been  gained.  The  boundaries  ot 
the  Empire  have  been  extended.  It  would  be  quite 
as  fair  to  attribute  your  prosperity  as  your  calamity 
to  us.  Moreover,  is  it  seemly  to  ascribe  anger  and 

1  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  ix.  7.  2  Arn.  adv.  Gentes,  i.  3-5. 

3  Arn.  adv.  Gentes,  i.  15. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


51 


spite  to  the  immortal  gods  ?  Do  such  passions  dwell 
in  heavenly  minds  ?  Again,  if  we  are  the  offenders, 
do  the  gods  need  your  strenuous  advocacy  to  avenge 
the  insults  offered  them  ?  By  heat  and  by  cold,  by 
tempest  and  by  disease,  they  can  consume  us  and 
drive  us  from  the  earth ;  why  do  they  not  put  forth 
their  power  if  they  are  really  angry  ?  Moreover,  if  we 
alone  are  the  offenders,  why  does  not  the  punishment 
fall  on  us  alone?  To  you  let  them  give  good  health, 
to  us  the  worst.  On  your  farms  let  them  send  season¬ 
able  showers,  on  ours  let  them  drive  away  all  gentle 
rain.  Let  your  sheep  multiply,  and  ours  be  barren. 
Let  your  oliveyards  and  vineyards  give  their  full  in. 
crease,  let  ours  give  not  even  a  single  fruit.  Let  them 
make  the  fruits  of  the  earth  nutritious  to  you,  but  to 
us  let  the  honey  be  bitter,  the  oil  rancid,  and  the 
wine  vinegar.  Such  is  not  the  case  now.  To  us 
who  are  impious  no  less  share  in  the  bounties  of  life 
accrues  than  to  you  who  are  pious.  On  you  as  well 
as  on  us  misfortune  falls.” 

Tertullian  points  out  that  many  calamities  befell 
the  world  before  the  coming  of  Christ.  Islands  were 
swallowed  up  by  earthquakes,  the  world  was  destroyed 
by  a  flood,  Sodom  and  Gomorrha,  Vulsinii  and 
Pompeii  were  destroyed  by  fire,  the  Romans  were 
defeated  at  Cannae,  and  their  Capitol  was  besieged, 
long  before  the  mention  of  the  Christian  name.  In¬ 
deed,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Christians  lighten  the 
calamities  which  come  upon  the  earth.  When  the 
heathen,  with  their  sacrifices  and  processions  in  the 
times  of  their  calamity  and  anxiety,  are  supplicating 
the  gods  for  deliverance,  the  Christians,  by  fasting 

e  2 


52 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


and  prayer,  by  abstinence  from  sin  and  even  ordinary 
enjoyments,  assail  heaven  with  their  importunities. 
They  touch  God’s  heart,  and  He  is  merciful ;  but 
Jupiter  gets  the  honour.1 

Cyprian,  in  replying  to  Demetrian,  the  proconsul 
of  Africa,  on  this  matter,  has  quite  another  theory.* 
He  confesses  that  in  winter  there  is  not  such  an 
abundance  of  showers,  nor  in  summer  so  much  sun 
to  ripen  the  corn,  that  marble  is  dug  in  less  quantity 
from  the  mountains,  and  that  the  gold  and  silver 
mines  show  signs  of  early  exhaustion,  that  strength, 
skill,  and  innocence  are  all  failing ;  and  the  reason  is, 
the  world  is  growing  old. 

The  Apologists  are  very  careful  to  free  the  Chris¬ 
tians  from  the  charge  of  impiety  and  atheism.  Though 
they  do  not  worship  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  they  do 
serve  and  worship  God. 

“To  adore,”  asks  Arnobius,3  “God  as  the  highest 
existence,  as  the  Lord  of  all  things  that  be,  as  occupy¬ 
ing  the  highest  place  among  all  exalted  ones,  to  pray 
to  Him  with  submission  in  our  distresses,  to  cling  to 
Him  with  all  our  senses  (so  to  speak),  to  love  Him, 
to  look  up  to  Him  in  faith — is  this  an  execrable  and 
unhallowed  religion,  full  of  impiety  and  sacrilege,  pol¬ 
luting  by  its  novel  superstition  ancient  ceremonies? 
Is  this  the  daring  and  heinous  iniquity  on  account  of 
which  the  mighty  powers  of  Heaven  whet  against  us 
the  stings  of  passionate  indignation ;  on  account  of 
which  you  yourselves,  whenever  the  savage  desire  has 
seized  you,  spoil  us  of  our  goods,  drive  us  from  our 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  40. 


2  Ad  Demet.  c.  iii. 


5  Am.  i.  25. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


53 


ancestral  homes,  inflict  upon  us  capital  punishment, 
torture,  mangle,  burn  us,  expose  us  to  wild  beasts, 
and  give  us  to  be  torn  by  monsters?  Does  he  deserve 
the  name  of  man  who  makes  such  a  charge  ?  Can  he 
be  reckoned  amongst  the  gods  who  charges  with  im¬ 
piety  those  who  serve  the  King  supreme,  or  is  racked 
with  envy  because  His  Majesty  and  worship  are  pre¬ 
ferred  to  his  own  ?  ” 

Of  course  it  is  very  easy  to  see  how  the  charge  of 
atheism  arose.  The  Christians  had  no  temples  and 
no  images,  they  would  take  no  part  in  any  of  the 
ceremonies  of  the  State  religion.  Their  whole  life 
showed  that  they  despised  and  loathed  heathenism. 

Celsus  says,1  “  The  Christians  cannot  so  much  as 
endure  the  sight  of  the  temples,  altars,  and  statues.’7 
The  Christians  have  no  temples,  therefore  they  have 
no  gods,  was  a  convincing  argument  to  a  heathen. 
His  religion  was  purely  an  external  one.  It  concerned 
his  nation,  it  concerned  his  family,  it  affected  his 
public  and  domestic  life,  but  it  did  not  purify  his 
desires,  and  it  did  not  influence  his  heart.  Disbelief  in 
a  god  was  no  reason  for  not  sacrificing  to  him ;  if  the 
object  of  desire  was  criminal,  that  again  was  no  reason 
for  omitting  to  ask  a  god’s  help.  All  alike  were  content 
to  make  utility  the  foundation  of  religion.  Philoso¬ 
phers  and  statesmen  said,  with  more  or  less  certainty, 
The  religion  of  the  gods  is  false  ;  but  they  felt  the 
masses  could  be  hardly  controlled  without  it.  The 
Roman  people  generally  said,  By  venerating  the  gods 
Rome  has  reached  its  present  height  of  prosperity.2 

‘  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  vii.  62.  2  Tert.  Apol.  c.  25. 


54 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


From  neglect  of  the  auguries  experience  tells  us 
disaster  has  often  come.  The  Christians,  who  despise 
the  gods,  are  enemies  to  the  State.1 

The  third  charge  brought  against  the  Christians, 
and,  in  some  respect,  that  of  the  most  importance,  was 
of  a  political  nature.  They  formed,  it  was  said,  a 
secret  society,  they  belonged  to  an  unlawful  and  new 
religion,  they  were  disloyal  to  the  Emperor,  and  un¬ 
profitable  to  the  State. 

The  jealousy  of  the  Romans  against  secret  societies 
was  very  great.  The  Emperor  Trajan  went  so  far  as 
to  forbid  the  formation  of  a  company  of  firemen  at 
Alexandria.  There  was  necessarily  much  secrecy 
about  the  Christians  and  their  religion,  and  there  was 
besides  much  about  them  to  excite  suspicion.  They 
were  a  body  of  men  of  all  nations  growing  and  spread¬ 
ing  every  day.  They  were  united  by  some  tie  for 
some  unknown  purpose ;  this  purpose  was  plainly  of 
the  greatest  importance,  for  everything  reckoned  valu¬ 
able  by  others  was  neglected  by  them ;  the  world’s 
honours  and  the  world’s  pleasures  they  alike  despised. 
Vague  reports  of  a  kingdom  which  they  were  setting 
up  were  continually  floating  about,  and  that  was  quite 
enough  to  excite  jealousy  in  the  mind  of  any  Roman 
governor.  Every  now  and  then  glimpses  of  their  aims 
would  be  seen,  and  these  were  nothing  more  or  less 
than  the  subversion  of  the  State  religion.  The  Chris¬ 
tians,  then,  belonged  to  a  secret  society,  and  one, 
apparently,  of  a  dangerous  character.  But  this  was 
not  all,  Christianity  was  an  “  unlawful  ”  religion — a 


1  Octavius  of  Min.  Felix,  c.  7. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


55 


“new”  religion.  Now,  at  first  sight  it  might  be 
thought  that  one  more  or  one  less  religion  would  not 
have  been  considered  a  matter  of  much  importance. 
The  heathen  religions  were  more  numerous  than  the 
Christian  sects  now.  The  heathen  had  gods  many  and 
lords  many,  and  fresh  ones  were  springing  up  every 
day.  The  Roman  government  was  tolerant  of  all 
religions.  It  never  called  together  all  peoples,  nations, 
and  languages,  to  worship  the  golden  image  which  it 
had  set  up.  No  one  was  persecuted  for  his  opinions  ; 
it  was  quite  an  understood  thing  that  different  nations 
had  different  gods.  A  religion  was,  as  it  were,  a 
national  characteristic.  Just  as  one  nation  differed 
from  another  in  colour,  language,  customs,  and  laws, 
so  it  differed  also  in  the  gods  which  it  worshipped. 
So  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Romans,  when  they  con¬ 
quered  a  nation,  and  incorporated  it  into  their  Empire, 
incorporated  also  its  gods  into  their  Pantheon.  Rome, 
the  Mistress  of  the  world,  Alexandria,  the  meeting- 
place  of  the  world,  were  the  homes  of  all  religions ; 
temples  to  the  different  gods  stood  side  by  side.  The 
gods  and  the  nations  were  supposed  to  be  suited  the 
one  to  the  other ;  the  gods  took  care  of  the  nations, 
and  the  nations  worshipped  the  gods.  Everybody 
worshipped  the  gods  of  his  fathers  after  the  rites  of 
his  fathers,  and  the  Government  was  not  careful  to 
inquire  what  those  rites  were.  Gallio  represents  the 
indifference  of  the  Roman  State  when  he  said,  “  If  it 
be  a  question  of  words  and  names,  and  of  your  law, 
look  ye  to  it ;  for  I  will  be  no  judge  of  such  matters.”1 


1  Acts  xviii.  15. 


56 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


But  religions  being,  according  to  the  Roman  idea, 
national  characteristics,  they  could  not  be  changed 
any  more  than  you  could  change  your  nation.  Pro¬ 
selytizing  was  a  thing  strictly  forbidden,  it  overthrew 
the  object  of  religions  altogether.  By  the  aid  of  reli¬ 
gion,  order  was  much  more  easily  kept ;  that,  indeed, 
according  to  some,  was  its  chief  use.  A  superstitious 
fear,  a  Roman  historian  says,  was  the  mainstay  of 
the  Roman  State.1  But  proselytizing  implied  contro¬ 
versy,  and  angry  passions,  and  tumults,  and  disorder, 
and  all  for  a  mere  nothing.  One  god  was,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  as  good  as  another ;  and  the 
gods  of  a  nation  had  a  claim  on  the  worship  and 
veneration  of  the  members  of  that  nation.2 

Now,  of  course,  Christianity  could  not  reap  the 
benefit  of  such  toleration  as  this.  It  proclaimed 
with  a  loud  voice  that  there  was  but  one  God  for  all 
nations.  In  its  very  essence  it  was  aggressive ;  the 
work  of  its  ministers  was  to  go  out  into  the  highways 
and  hedges,  and  compel  men  to  come  in.  It  set 
itself  to  the  ridiculous  (as  it  seemed)  task  of  bringing 
all  the  inhabitants  of  Asia,  Europe,  and  Libya,  Greeks 
and  barbarians,  those  dwelling  in  the  uttermost  ends  of 
the  earth,  under  one  law.3  It  interfered  with  the  worship 
of  the  national  gods,  and  moreover,  it  repudiated  that 
worship  of  the  Emperor  by  which  the  Romans  thought 
they  could  unite  the  world  in  one  religious  bond.  Very 
soon  we  find  the  Christians  overpassing  the  bounds 
of  Roman  tolerance.  They  were  found  to  be  dis¬ 
turbers  of  the  public  peace.  They  would  not  leave 

1  Polybius,  vi.  56.  2  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  v.  25,  35. 

1  lb.  viii.  72. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


57 


other  people  alone,  and  therefore  they  were  not  left 
alone.  The  history  of  the  Church  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
ment  shows  us  this.  To  avoid  a  tumult  Pilate  ordered 
Jesus  to  be  crucified.  Paul  is  scourged  at  Philippi 
as  an  exceeding  troubler  of  the  city.  At  Thessalonica 
he  is  described  as  a  man  who  has  turned  the  world 
upside  down.  He  excites  disturbance  wherever  he 
goes,  and  is  ultimately  sent  to  Rome  because  of  an 
uproar  at  Jerusalem.  Perhaps  it  was  tumultuous 
gatherings  arising  out  of  Christian  controversies  which 
caused  the  Jews  to  be  expelled  from  Rome  in  the 
reign  of  Claudius.1  It  is  evident  that  on  the  Christians 
would  be  laid  the  blame  of  all  such  tumults.  From 
a  political  point  of  view  they  were  justly  blamable. 
The  view  of  the  Roman  authorities  could  be  none 
other  than  this.  This  man’s  teaching  attacked  people’s 
prejudices;  being  what  it  was,  it  could  hardly  fail  to 
make  them  angry,  and  excite  disturbance.  We  must 
suppress  him,  and  those  like  him,  if  we  would  have 
peace. 

The  “  novelty  ”  of  Christianity  was  no  unimportant 
item  in  the  charge  against  it.  “  This  new  religion,” 
Lucian  calls  it  scoffingly.2  “  Why  has  this  new  kind 
of  practice  entered  so  late  into  the  world  ?  ”  was  the 
question  of  Diognetus.3  “Your  doctrine  has  but  re¬ 
cently  come  to  light,”  was  the  common  taunt.4  To 
bring  back  the  observance  of  the  ancient  institutions, 
ancient  laws  and  discipline,  and  the  worship  of  the 

1  Cf.  Suetonius:  Judseos  impulsore  Chresto  assidue  tumultu- 
antes  Roma  expulit. 

2  De  Morte  Peregrini.  ?  Ad  Diognetum,  ?.  i. 

4  Theoph.  ad  Aut.  iii.  4. 


58  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

ancestral  religion,  was  the  aim  of  the  very  last  perse¬ 
cution.  “  The  ancient  religion  ought  not  to  be  cen¬ 
sured  by  a  new,”  is  a  statement  in  one  of  Diocletian’s 
edicts.1  “  It  is  the  greatest  of  crimes  to  overturn 
what  has  been  once  established  by  our  ancestors,  and 
what  has  supremacy  in  the  State  ” ;  “  It  is  an  act  of 
impiety  to  get  rid  of  the  institutions  established  from 
the  beginning  in  the  various  places,”  says  the  philo¬ 
sopher  Celsus.2  It  was  not  difficult  to  answer  the 
objection  based  upon  the  novelty  of  Christianity. 
Arnobius  points  out  the  improvements  in  science,  art, 
and  civilization,  and  asks  whether  they  are  any  the 
worse  for  being  new.3  He  notices  that  the  Romans 
are  constantly  changing  their  habits  and  modes  of 
life.  Granted  that  the  heathen  religion  was  old,  it 
was  only  a  question  of  degree.  “  The  belief  which  we 
hold  is  new,  some  day  it  will  be  old ;  yours  is  old, 
but  at  its  rise  it  was  new  and  unheard  of.  The 
credibility  of  a  religion  cannot  be  determined  by  its 
age,  but  by  its  nature.4  Four  hundred  years  ago  our 
?'eZigion  did  not  exist,  we  admit.  But  two  thousand 
years  ago  your  gods  even  did  not  exist.5  Does  the  Al¬ 
mighty  and  Supreme  God  seem  to  you  something 
new,  and  do  those  who  adore  and  worship  Him  seem 
to  you  to  be  introducing  an  unheard-of,  unknown? 
and  upstart  religion  ?  Is  there  anything  older  than 
He  ?  Can  anything  be  found  preceding  Him  ?  Is 
not  He  alone  uncreated,  immortal,  and  everlasting? 
Our  religion  is  not  new  in  itself,  but  we  have  been 
late  in  learning  the  true  object  of  worship.6  Our  reli. 

1  Quoted  by  Neander,  C.  H.  i.  200.  2  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  v.  25. 

3  Am.  ii.  66,  67.  4  lb.  c.  71.  3  lb.  c.  72.  6  lb.  c.  73. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


59 


gion,  it  is  true,  has  only  lately  sprung  up  on  the  earth; 
and  the  reason  is,  He  who  was  sent  to  declare  it  to  us 
has  but  lately  appeared.1  Do  you  ask  why  this  was  ? 
We  answer,  We  do  not  know.  We  cannot  explain 
the  plans  of  God.  But  this  we  may  say ;  in  eternal 
and  unbounded  ages  nothing  whatever  can  be  spoken 
of  as  late.  Where  there  is  no  end  and  no  beginning, 
nothing  is  too  soon,  and  nothing  too  late.”  2 

And  now  we  are  in  a  position  to  state  the  precise 
way  in  which  the  Christians  during  the  first  three 
centuries  became  obnoxious  to  the  law.  They  be¬ 
longed  to  a  religion,  not  venerable  for  age,  not  allowed 
by  law,  and  not  national.  They  belonged,  moreover, 
to  a  religion,  which,  instead  of  promoting  order,  caused 
dissension  and  tumult  all  over  the  world.  Christianity, 
being  what  it  was,  could  not  be  placed  on  the  list  of 
allowed  religions ;  to  belong  to  it .  was  therefore  a 
legal  offence.  In  consequence,  a  Christian’s  trial  was 
a  very  simple  thing.  He  was  dragged  before  the 
judgment-seat  by  the  mob  for  his  unnatural  crimes, 
or  for  his  atheism.  The  former  charge  was  very  difficult 
to  prove,  and  as  for  the  latter,  the  judge  was  probably 
himself  an  atheist  by  conviction ;  still  it  was  not 
politic  to  let  him  go,  for  a  tumult  was  made.  The 
judge,  like  Pilate,  often  wished  to  release  him;  some¬ 
times  he  ran  all  risks,  and  did  release  him,3  but  more 
commonly  he  let  the  people  have  their  own  way. 
He  condemned  in  legal  fashion  a  man  who  was  un¬ 
justly  accused.  Not  his  immorality,  or  his  atheism, 
but  his  Christianity  was  the  legal  charge  on  which  he 


Arn.  ii.  c.  74. 


2  lb.  ii.  75. 


3  Tert.  ad  Scap.  c.  4. 


6o 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


was  condemned.  The  law  said,  “  The  Christians  are 
not  permitted  to  be.”  The  judge  had  only  to  ask, 
“Are  you  a  Christian?”  He  had  only  to  obtain 
the  confession,  “  I  am,”  and  then  there  was  no  need 
to  inquire  further  into  other  matters.  The  Christians, 
as  such,  were  liable  to  torture  and  death. 

“Are  you  a  Christian?”  This  is  a  simple  question 
to  us,  but  it  is  one  which  has  caused  many  a  stout 
man's  heart  to  quail.  “Are  you  a  Christian?”  He 
had  but  to  say,  No;  he  had  but  to  throw  a  little 
incense  on  the  fire,  he  had  but  to  revile  the  name  of 
Christ ;  and  then  at  once  he  would  be  dismissed 
unhurt,  confirmed  in  his  office  if  he  had  one,  with  his 
property  untouched,  and  his  reputation  unsullied. 
He  might  have  been  a  Christian  in  days  gone  by,  the 
law  would  forgive  him  that ;  he  might  still  be  a  Chris¬ 
tian  by  conviction,  of  men’s  opinions  the  law  took  no 
cognizance  ;  if  from  henceforward  he  conformed  out¬ 
wardly  to  the  State  religion,  that  was  sufficient,  the 
law  asked  for  nothing  more. 

And  soon,  too,  the  authorities  discovered  that 
denial  and  apostasy  gave  them  more  than  they  even 
asked.  The  Roman  governor  with  a  sneer  on  his 
face,  the  mob  with  outspoken  jeers,  the  Christians 
with  heartfelt  prayers  and  pity,  marked  the  pale  face 
and  hesitating  look  of  the  accused,  and  one  and  all 
knew  that  if  he  said,  “  No,  I  am  not  a  Christian,”  a 
Christian  ipso  facto  he  was  no  longer.  Open  denial 
and  apostasy  could  only  be  purged  by  an  open  con¬ 
fession.  And  thus  all  learnt  the  fact  that  a  Christian’s 
words  and  deeds  were  in  closest  harmony.  A  philo¬ 
sopher  had  no  objection  to  take  the  test  and  swear 


THE  DEFENCE. 


6l 

by  the  gods  which  he  had  proved  had  no  existence. 
A  Christian  who  denied  the  name  of  Christ  ceased 
to  be  a  Christian  in  any  sense  whatever. 

If,  then,  the  prisoner  pleaded,  “  Not  guilty,”  his 
plea  was  accepted,  and  he  was  released.  Blit  if  he 
pleaded  “  Guilty  ” ;  if  he  said,  “  I  am  a  Christian,” 
what  then?  Then  the  struggle  began.  Surely  it  is 
an  almost  incredible  fact  in  the  history  of  trials  of 
justice,  that  the  attempt  should  be  made  to  compel 
men  to  confess  that  they  were  innocent  of  the  crime 
laid  to  their  charge.  Yet  so  it  was.  Torture  was 
applied,  not  to  make  the  accused  confess,  but  to 
make  him  deny.1  That  was  the  great  aim  the  law 
always  had.  The  desire  was,  not  to  punish  men  who 
had  been  Christians,  but  to  exterminate  Christianity. 
It  is  Tertullian  who  brings  this  strange  mode  of  proce¬ 
dure  clearly  before  us.2  He  pictures  a  man  replying 
to  the  question  with  the  words,  “  I  am  a  Christian.” 
“He  tells  you  what  he  is,”  says  Tertullian;  “you 
wish  to  hear  from  him  what  he  is  not.  Occupying 
your  place  of  authority  to  extort  the  truth,  you  do 
your  utmost  to  get  lies  from  us.  ‘  I  am,’  he  says, 

‘  that  which  you  ask  me  if  I  am.  Why  do  you  torture 
me  to  sin?  I  confess,  and  you  put  me  to  the  rack. 
What  should  you  do  if  I  denied  ’  ?  Certainly  you  give 
no  ready  credence  to  others  when  they  deny ;  when 
we  deny,  you  believe  at  once.”  Tertullian  sees  in 
this  a  proof  that  it  is  the  Christian  name  which  is 
being  pursued  with  enmity.  “We  are  put  to  the 
torture  if  we  confess,  and  we  are  punished  if  we  per- 


1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  2. 


2  lb. 


62 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


severe,  and  if  we  deny,  we  are  acquitted,  because  all 
the  contention  is  about  a  name.”  He  points  out  that 
the  authorities,  treating  the  Christians  thus  differently 
from  criminals,  recognize  the  fact  that  Christians  are 
indeed  guiltless  of  crime. 

The  accounts  of  Christian  trials  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  all  confirm  Tertullian’s  statement.  The 
question  and  the  answer  on  such  occasions  seem  to 
have  been  nearly  always  the  same.  “  Are  you  a 
Christian?”  Pliny  asks  those  brought  before  him. 
When  they  confess,  he  repeats  the  question  twice, 
with  threats  ;  when  they  persist,  he  orders  them  to  be 
punished.  “  I  am  a  Christian,”  says  Polycarp  (they 
did  not  need  to  ask  him).  To  the  invitations, 
“  Swear  by  the  fortune  of  Caesar  ” ;  “  Repent,  and 
say,  ‘Away  with  the  Atheists’ !”  “Swear,  and  I  will 
set  thee  at  liberty  ”;  “  Reproach  Christ,” — the  same 
simple  statement  is  his  only  reply.  Through  the 
Stadium  the  proclamation  is  thrice  made,  “  Poly¬ 
carp  has  confessed  that  he  is  a  Christian.”  And 
then  the  only  doubt  is,  what  death  he  shall  die.1  One 
question  only  is  asked  of  Ptolemaeus  when  accused 
before  Urbicius  at  Alexandria ;  as  must  needs  be  with 
a  true  Christian,  confession  is  made,  and  condemna¬ 
tion  at  once  pronounced.  A  bystander  protests,  and 
asks,  “  What  is  the  ground  of  this  judgment  ?  Why 
have  you  punished  this  man,  not  as  an  adulterer, 
nor  fornicator,  nor  murderer,  nor  thief,  nor  robber, 
nor  convicted  of  any  crime  at  all,  but  who  has  only 
confessed  that  he  is  called  by  the  name  of  Christ  ?  ” 


1  Just.  Apol.  ii.  2. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


63 


The  only  answer  the  question  gets  is,  “  You  also 
seem  to  be  such  an  one.”  It  is  promptly  replied, 
“  Most  certainly  I  am,”  and  he  too  is  led  away  to 
death,  to  be  in  his  turn  followed  by  a  third.  “  Are 
you  a  Christian  ?  ”  is  the  question  of  the  prefect 
Rusticus  to  Justin  and  his  fellow-martyrs.  “I  am  a 
Christian/’  each  replies  in  turn,  “  by  the  command  of 
God,”  “  by  the  grace  of  God,”  “  being  freed  by 
Christ.”  “Do  what  you  will,  we  are  Christians,  and 
do  not  sacrifice  to  idols.”  Immediately  sentence  is 
pronounced.  What  need  is  there  of  any  further 
instances  ?  The  same  is  true  throughout  the  period 
of  persecution  ;  and  is  it  not  cause  for  deep  thank¬ 
fulness  and  for  pride,  that  our  brothers,  following  the 
Apostolic  command,  did  not  suffer  as  murderers,  or 
thieves,  or  evildoers,  or  busybodies  in  other  men’s 
matters ;  but  they  suffered  as  Christians,  and  were  not 
ashamed,  but  glorified  God  on  this  behalf. 1 

But  it  was  very  hard  for  them  to  resist  to  blood, 
when  a  word  would  have  set  them  free.  Throughout,  it 
was  the  great  object  of  the  judges  to  make  the  Chris¬ 
tians  say  that  word.  Sometimes  threats  were  used  ; 
the  confessors  were  threatened  with  the  flames,  or 
the  wild  beasts,  or  the  brothel.2  Sometimes  a  free  par¬ 
don  was  offered  to  all  who  renounced  their  faith, 
whilst  instant  death  was  inflicted  on  those  who  still 
stood  firm.3  Sometimes  a  man  was  begged  to  have 
respect  to  his  old  age,4  sometimes  to  have  compassion 

1  1  Peter  iv.  15,  16. 

2  Martyrdom  of  Polycarp,  c.  xi.  ;  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  viii.  1,  12  ; 
vi.  41  ;  The  Passion  of  St.  Theodotus. 

3  Eus.  v.  1.  4  Polycarp,  Martyrdom,  c.  9. 


64 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


on  his  youth.1  Sometimes  friends  did  their  utmost  to 
make  them  recant.2  A  grey-haired  father  throws 
himself  at  his  daughter’s  feet,  and  with  tears  he  im¬ 
plores  her.3  “  Have  pity,  my  daughter,”  he  says,  “on 
my  grey  hairs.  Have  pity  on  your  father,  if  I  am 
worthy  to  be  called  a  father  by  you.  If  with  these 
hands  I  have  brought  you  up  to  this  flower  of  your 
age,  if  I  have  preferred  you  to  all  your  brothers,  do 
not  deliver  me  up  to  the  scorn  of  men.  Have  regard 
to  your  brothers,  have  regard  to  your  mother  and  to 
your  aunt,  have  regard  to  your  son,  who  will  not  be 
able  to  live  after  you.”  The  procurator  says,  “  Spare 
the  grey  hairs  of  your  father,  spare  the  infancy  of  your 
boy,  offer  sacrifice  for  the  well-being  of  the  emperors.” 
She  answers,  “  I  will  not  do  so.”  He  asks,  “  Are  you 
a  Christian  ?  ”  and  she  replies,  “  I  am.”  Then  there 
was  but  a  step  between  her  and  death.  But  not  all 
were  brave  and  constant,  many  were  overcome  by 
torture,  or  over-persuaded  by  their  friends.  Specially 
was  this  the  case  in  the  later  persecutions.  A  time 
of  peace  and  quiet  had  its  drawbacks,  it  added  those 
to  the  Church  who  in  times  of  persecution  were  ready 
to  fall  away.  The  number  of  apostates  in  the  Decian 
and  Diocletian  persecutions  was  very  great ;  and,  the 
persecutions  over,  the  Church  found  the  greatest 
difficulty  in  dealing  with  them  when  they  asked  for 
re-admission  to  communion.  The  orthodox  teaching 
was  very  strict.  Some  of  the  heretics  said  that  you 
might  deny  Christ  with  your  mouth  but  still  confess 


1  Polycarp,  Martyr,  c.  3.  2  Eus.  Hist.  Eccl.  vi.  41. 

8  Passions  of  Perpetua  and  Felicitas. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


65 


Him  in  your  heart.1  The  Church  always  held  that 
those  who  formally  or  virtually  apostatized  committed 
sin  almost  if  not  quite  beyond  forgiveness  on  earth. 
Years  of  repentance  had  in  every  case  to  precede 
restoration  to  full  Christian  privileges. 

Gallienus,  in  the  year  a.d.  259,  was  the  first  emperor 
who  recognized  Christianity  as  a  legal  religion.^  Up 
to  that  time  the  Christians  were  always  liable  to  be 
persecuted.  The  law  was  against  them,  although  the 
Emperor  or  the  governors  might  be  on  their  side. 
Gallienus  gave  to  the  Christians  the  free  exercise  of 
their  religion,  and  the  right  of  holding  property  ;  and 
thus  placed  the  law  on  their  side.  The  liberty  then 
first  granted  was  withdrawn  by  later  emperors ;  it  was 
not  till  Constantine’s  time  that  Christianity  was  firmly 
established  in  its  position.  Under  him  it  became 
not  only  an  allowed  religion,  but  the  religion  of  the 
State. 

We  pass  on  now  to  the  next  political  charge,  viz., 
disloyalty  to  the  Emperor.  The  Christians  had  “  an¬ 
other  king,  one  Jesus”  ;3  this  was  the  fact  which  at 
first  excited  the  jealousy  of  the  State.  But  when  it 
discovered,  as  it  soon  did,  that  the  Christian  kingdom 
was  “  celestial  and  angelic,  and  to  appear  at  the  end 
of  the  world,”  it  ceased  to  trouble  itself  about  the 
matter.4 

The  foundation  for  the  charge  of  disloyalty  was 
quite  different  in  later  times.  The  Christians  were 
reckoned  to  be  disloyal  to  the  Emperor  because  they 

1  Eus.  Eccl.  Hist.  vi.  38. 

2  Neander,  ‘  History  of  the  Church,  vol.  i.  194. 

3  Acts  xvii.  7.  4  Eus.  Hist.  Ecc.  iii.  20. 

F 


66 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


refused  to  reverence  him  as  divine,  to  swear  by  his 
genius,  and  to  celebrate  his  festal  days.  They  would 
not  make  a  god  of  him,  in  fact,  and  so  they  were 
reckoned  to  be  traitors. 

The  Apologists1  tell  us  that  the  Christians  were 
quite  ready  to  pay  all  human  honours  to  the  Emperor ; 
that  they  prayed  for,  served,  and  honoured  the  Em¬ 
peror  as  pious  and  loyal  subjects  should.  They  point 
out  the  fact  that  no  Christians  are  found  amongst  the 
conspirators.  Indeed,  such  a  thing  is  impossible,  for 
their  religion  forbids  them  to  wish,  do,  speak,  or  think 
evil  of  any  one.  The  Christians,  they  say,  have  a 
special  interest  in  the  prosperity  of  the  Roman  em¬ 
pire,  for  they  believe  that  with  its  fall  violent  commo¬ 
tions  will  come  upon  the  world.2 

The  last  political  charge  is  unprofitableness  to  the 
State,  and  perhaps  no  charge  had  more  real  founda¬ 
tion  in  fact.3 

When  we  examine  the  history  and  read  the  litera¬ 
ture  of  the  Early  Church,  we  cannot  fail  being  struck 
with  the  all-absorbing  character  of  Christianity  in 
those  early  times.  A  Christian  had  the  hopes  and 
the  promises  of  his  religion,  and  for  the  most  part 
he  had  nothing  else  to  call  his  own.  He  looked 
back  on  the  life  of  Christ  Incarnate.  He  looked 
forward  to  the  coming  of  Christ  in  power  and  great 
glory.  Both  events  were  very  near  to  him.  Christ 
had  but  lately  come  ;  Christ  was  very  quickly  to  come. 
The  cloud  had  but  just  received  Him  out  of  his 
sight ;  the  clouds  were  already  gathering  to  accom- 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  32.  2  lb.  c.  32. 

Orig.  c.  Celsum,  viii.  5 5  -  68. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


67 


pany  His  return.  There  was  nothing  on  the  earth 
for  him  to  delight  in.  He  had  no  hold  on  its  riches 
or  its  honours,  for  he  could  not  reckon  even  on  his 
life.  Any  day  he  might  have  to  give  up  all  for 
Christ,  and  any  day  Christ  might  come  again.  The 
state  of  the  world  in  which  he  lived,  the  rapid 
approach  of  the  world  to  come — both  these  produced 
in  him  a  remarkable  singleness  of  aim. 

Hence  arose  the  charge  that  the  Christians  were 
unprofitable  citizens.  The  later  Apologists  invariably 
refer  to  it.  Tertullian  denies  its  truth.1  “  How  in  all 
the  world,”  he  says,  “  can  that  be  the  case  with  people 
who  are  living  among  you,  eating  the  same  food, 
wearing  the  same  attire,  having  the  same  habits,  under 
the  same  necessities  of  existence?”  “  We  sojourn 
with  you  in  the  world,  abjuring  neither  forum,  nor 
shambles,  nor  booth,  nor  workshop,  nor  inn,  nor 
weekly  market,  nor  any  other  place  of  commerce. 
We  sail  with  you,  and  serve  in  your  armies,  and  till 
the  ground  with  you.  In  like  manner  we  unite  with 
you  in  your  trafficking ;  even  in  the  various  arts  we 
make  public  property  of  our  works  for  your  benefit.” 
The  Christians,  he  tells  us,  had  their  own  costly  reli¬ 
gious  ceremonies.  They  spent  much  on  charity,  and 
defrauded  none  of  their  due.  They  did  not  pander 
to  the  luxury  and  vice  of  the  age ;  but  that  was 
no  loss  to  the  State.  They  cost  the  Government 
nothing  as  criminals,  and  they  alone  reckoned 
themseives  to  be  responsible  for  their  words 
and  looks  as  well  as  their  deeds.  Such  is  Ter- 
tullian’s  defence  in  his  Apology.  It  seems  to  be 

Apol.  c.  42. 

F  2 


1 


68 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


pretty  complete,  considering  the  times  and  the  posi 
tion  of  the  Christians.  Unfortunately,  in  other  places, 
Tertullian  seems  to  contradict  himself.  He  tells  us 
the  Christians  have  in  this  world  no  concern,  but  to 
depart  out  of  it  as  quickly  as  they  may.1  Lactantius 
again  denies  the  lawfulness  of  all  pursuit  of  gain.2 

With  principles  like  these,  there  would  be  few  busy, 
thriving  merchants  among  them,  ministering  either  to 
the  luxuries,  or  even  the  wants  of  the  people.  For 
another  reason,  also,  commerce  was  almost  closed  to 
them,  for  they  could  not  protect  themselves  when 
cheated.  The  forms  of  the  law-courts  were  idolatrous, 
so  that  they  could  not  be  used  with  a  clear  con¬ 
science.  It  was  doubtful  whether,  under  any  circum¬ 
stances,  lawsuits  could  be  permitted.  “  It  does  not 
become/’  says  Tertullian,  “  the  son  of  peace  to  sue 
at  law.” 3  The  Christians  took  no  part  in  politics, 
they  despised  and  refused  all  temporal  honours  and 
ensigns  of  magistracy.4  For  conscience  sake,  as  we 
have  seen,  they  abstained  from  the  public  games  and 
the  temple  worships  ;  they  brought  no  custom  to  the 
multitudes  who  derived  their  livelihood  from  one  or 
the  other.  More  than  all,  some  of  the  Christians  had 
conscientious  scruples  connected  with  the  lawfulness 
of  the  profession  of  arms.  Tertullian  says,  “  There  is 
no  agreement  between  the  divine  and  human  sacra¬ 
ment,  the  standard  of  Christ  and  the  standard  of  the 
devil,  the  camp  of  light  and  the  camp  of  darkness.”  5 

1  Apol.  c.  41.  2  Div.  Inst.  v.  17. 

3  Tert.  de  Corona,  c.  11. 

4  Tert.  Apol.  c.  38  ;  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  viii.  75. 

5  Tert.  de  Idol.  c.  19. 


THE  DEFENCE. 


6  9 


If  a  soldier  become  a  Christian,  he  says,  he  must  either 
quit  the  service  or  suffer  for  God’s  sake.1  Many  of 
the  Apologists  held  the  same  opinion  on  the  incom¬ 
patibility  of  the  military  service  with  the  service  of 
Christ.  Origen  says,2  “  None  fight  better  for  the  king 
than  we  do.  We  form  a  special  army  for  him,  an 
army  of  piety,  by  offering  our  prayers  to  God  ;  but  we 
do  not  fight  under  him,  even  if  he  require  it.”  A 
soldier’s  duties  often  brought  him  in  corrupting  con¬ 
tact  with  heathenism :  he  had  to  keep  guard  over  the 
temples,  and  take  meals  in  them  ;  he  had  to  protect 
the  heathen  gods,  and  had  to  carry  idolatrous  flags 
and  badges ;  he  had  to  take  idolatrous  oaths,  and  to 
join  in  idolatrous  ceremonies.3  Under  the  circum¬ 
stances  it  was  almost  impossible  for  a  Christian  to  be 
a  soldier.  Tertullian  went  even  further,  and  settled 
the  matter  on  abstract  principles.  The  Lord  had 
taken  away  the  sword;  in  disarming  Peter  he  unbelted 
every  soldier. 

It  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  course  of  conduct 
better  adapted  to  enrage  the  Roman  Government  than 
this.  They  could  hardly  be  expected  to  tolerate  the 
refusal  of  such  a  numerous  body  of  men  to  serve  in 
the  ranks  as  soldiers  and  to  fulfil  their  duties  as  citi¬ 
zens.  They  naturally  asked  what  would  become  of 
the  State  if  all  were  Christians ;  if  there  were  none  to 
fill  the  public  offices,  to  provide  for  the  public  neces¬ 
sities,  to  fight  against  the  public  foe.5  It  is  true  not 
all  the  Christians  were  thus,  by  their  principles,  made 

1  De  Corona,  c.  n.  2  C.  Celsum,  viii.  73. 

3  De  Idol.  c.  19;  de  Corona,  c.  11,  12. 

4  De  Idol.  c.  19.  5  Origen  c.  Celsum,  viii.  68,  69. 


70 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


useless  in  the  affairs  of  the  world.  Clement’s  exhorta¬ 
tion  is,  “  Practise  husbandry  if  you  are  a  husbandman ; 
but  while  you  till  your  fields,  know  God.  Sail  the  sea, 
you  who  are  devoted  to  navigation ;  yet  call  the  while 
on  the  heavenly  pilot.  Has  knowledge  taken  hold  of 
you  whilst  engaged  in  military  service  ?  listen  to  the 
commander  who  orders  what  is  right.” 1  But  in  the 
rise  of  a  new  party,  the  eccentricities  or  violent  state¬ 
ments  of  a  few  extreme  members  are  invariably  placed 
to  the  credit  of  the  whole.  In  this  case  the  heathen 
and  social  systems  were  so  closely  intertwined,  that  a 
Christian  could  not  join  in  many  of  the  pursuits  of 
the  day.  In  those  open  to  him,  conscientious  diffi¬ 
culties  were  constantly  in  his  path,  and  dangers  to 
his  property  and  life  were  continually  threatening. 
Not  wishing  to  court  martyrdom,  he  took  refuge  in 
obscurity ;  and  thus  incurred,  with  some  reason,  the 
charge  of  neglecting  his  duty  as  a  man  living  in  the 
world,  and  as  a  citizen  in  the  State. 

And  now  our  description  of  “  The  Defence  ”  is 
complete ;  we  have  seen  all  that  the  heathen  had  to 
say  against  the  Christians,  and  the  reply  the  Christians 
were  able  to  make.  Happy  would  it  have  been  for 
the  Christians,  if  their  enemies  had  never  been  able 
to  accuse  them  with  so  little  truth,  and  if  their  cham¬ 
pions  had  always  been  able  to  reply  with  such 
convincing  force. 


1  Clem.  Alex.  Cohort,  c.  io. 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


\ 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  ATTACK. 

The  Apologists  were  contending  for  toleration;  that 
is  a  fact  we  must  ever  bear  in  mind.  So  their  proper 
work  was  Defence ,  not  Attack .  But  it  was  very  diffi¬ 
cult  to  defend  themselves  without  attacking  the 
heathen.  Being  Christians,  their  object  was  to  sub¬ 
vert  all  the  religions  of  the  world,  and  put  Christianity 
in  their  place.  Christianity  claimed  to  be  The  Reli¬ 
gion  for  the  world.  Its  God  was  the  only  true  God. 
All  other  religions  were  false ;  their  gods  were  evil 
spirits,  or  mere  men,  or  powers  of  nature,  or  senseless 
wood  and  stone. 

Doubtless  it  would  have  been  more  politic  for 
those  who  were  asking  for  permission  merely  to  exist, 
to  have  abstained  from  carrying  the  war  into 
the  enemy’s  country.  But  the  Apologists  would 
not,  or  could  not,  do  this.  Attack  they  must  and 
would.  Thus  doing,  they  showed  the  heathen  the 
intolerant  nature  of  Christianity.  At  first,  the  idea  of 
a  universal  religion  was  regarded  with  contempt.1  Its 
accomplishment  was  considered  to  be  beyond  all 
possibility.  Later  on,  the  authorities  realized  their 
danger,  but  it  was  then  too  late.2  The  Christians  had 

1  Origen  c.  Celsum,  viii.  72. 

2  Decian  and  Diocletian  Persecutions. 


72 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


become  too  powerful,  and  the  battle  was  virtually 
won. 

When  the  Apologists  attacked  the  existing  heathen 
religions,  they  had,  so  far  as  argument  was  concerned, 
an  easy  task.  The  work  had  been  done  for  them 
already  by  the  philosophers.  The  world  had  out¬ 
grown  the  gods  of  its  childhood.  Men,  or,  at  any 
rate,  men  of  cultivated  intellects,  had  ceased  to  deify 
brute  force  and  strong  passion.  Philosophy  had 
taught  many  that  God  was  not  a  man,  or  like  a  man, 
in  His  nature  and  attributes.  The  heathen  mythology 
had  been  examined,  and  its  historical  character  utterly 
destroyed.  The  truth  of  the  heathen  religion  was 
given  up.  It  could  not,  it  was  confessed,  be  rationally 
defended.  Popular  discussion  upon  it  was  to  be 
avoided,  as  inevitably  tending  to  the  overthrow  of  its 
influence  on  the  people.1  Its  overthrow  was  to  be 
deprecated  for  many  reasons.  It  would  break  the 
connection  with  the  past.  It  would  cause  a  revolution 
in  the  State.  It  would  deprive  the  authorities  of  a 
most  useful  engine  of  government.  It  was  much  better 
to  leave  things  as  they  were.  It  was  much  better  to 
receive  the  teaching  of  antiquity,  and  to  adore  without 
inquiry.  The  maintenance  of  a  false  religion  could 
do  no  harm.  The  overthrow  of  the  religion  of  the 
State  must  produce  the  greatest  calamities. 

These  sceptical  opinions  were  not  wholly  confined  to 
the  learned  few.  They  were  popularized  for  the  masses 
by  the  poets  and  actors.  The  poets  were  allowed  to 
invent  unseemly  tales  concerning  the  gods.  Or  rather 


1  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  ii.  3. 


THE  ATTACK. 


73 


invention  was  scarcely  necessary ;  they  had  only  to 
put  in  an  attractive  form  the  disgraceful  legends 
handed  down  from  antiquity.  To  a  still  greater  degree, 
the  actors  in  their  representations  exposed  the  gods 
to  popular  ridicule.  At  the  public  games,  in  the  pre¬ 
sence  of  the  Priests,  the  Flamens,  the  Augurs,  and 
the  Vestal  Virgins,  the  gods,  in  whose  honour  all  were 
assembled,  were  so  depicted  as  to  expose  them  to  the 
contempt  and  abhorrence  of  all.  “  May  you  have  a 
daughter  as  wicked  as  she  whom  you  have  described,” 
said  a  spectator  to  an  actor,  after  hearing  the  cata¬ 
logue  of  Diana’s  sins.1  The  gods  furnished  a  mark 
for  the  low  wit  and  scurrilous  jests  of  the  comedians. 
And  this  suited  the  popular  taste.2  When  a  good  hit 
was  made,  the  spectators,  we  are  told,  shouted  and 
rose  up,  and  the  whole  pit  resounded  with  the  clapping 
of  hands  and  applause.  Arnobius  remarks  that  the 
gods  were  the  only  beings  unprotected  by  the  laws  of 
libel.3  To  whisper  evil  of  a  king  was  treason.  To 
degrade  a  magistrate  or  insult  a  senator  was  a  crime 
severely  punished.  To  defame  any  one  in  a  satirical 
poem  was,  by  the  laws  of  the  Decemvirs,  a  punishable 
offence.  Even  severe  affronts  had  their  assigned 
penalties.  Only  the  gods  were  unhonoured,  con¬ 
temptible,  and  vile.  About  them,  and  them  alone, 
any  one  was  at  liberty  to  say  what  he  would. 

The  Roman  policy,  and  the  course  of  events,  had 
greatly  helped  to  wreaken  the  hold  of  religion  on  the 
minds  of  men.  In  ancient  times  the  Romans  had  had 

1  The  story  is  Plutarch’s,  quoted  by  Lecky,  ‘  European 
Morals,’  i.  178. 

2  Arnobius  adv.  Gentes,  iv.  36.  3  lb.  iv.  34. 


74 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


a  religion  which,  however  defective,  had  served  many 
useful  purposes.  It  did  not,  as  one  has  observed, 
make  men  saints,  but  it  made  them  patriots.1  There 
are  many  noble  examples  of  self-devotion  in  Roman 
history.  At  the  command  of  the  gods  many  died, 
not,  indeed,  for  their  religion,  but  for  their  country. 
The  old  Roman  religion  promoted  simplicity  and 
morality  of  life.  It  made  men  better  citizens.  It 
filled  them  with  feelings  of  submission  and  reverence 
to  the  power  above  them,  and  beyond  them,  in  whose 
hands  they  were.  But  in  later  times  all  this  was 
changed.  Conquered  Greece  enslaved  its  conqueror. 
Greek  philosophy  and  Greek  religion  were  introduced 
into  Rome  together.  The  Greek  mythology  was  in¬ 
corporated  into  the  Roman  religion  and  corrupted  it. 
When  the  lives  of  the  gods  were  so  wicked,  and  the 
rites  in  which  they  were  worshipped  so  impure,  it 
could  not  fail  but  that  religion  and  morality  were 
altogether  dissevered.  At  the  same  time  Greek  philo¬ 
sophy  leavened  Roman  thought,  and  made  it  utterly 
sceptical.  The  idea  of  an  overruling  providence  was 
lost.  “  If  there  are  gods,”  Ennius  said,  and  the  people 
applauded,  “  they  do  not  concern  themselves  in  the 
affairs  of  men.”  Some  of  the  wisest  Romans  saw  the 
fearful  danger  to  the  State,  and  sought  to  avert  it.3 
The  elder  Cato,  at  the  very  commencement  of  the  mis¬ 
chief,  declared  the  Greeks  to  be  the  parents  of  every 
vice,  and  obtained  the  dismissal  of  the  Grecian  teachers. 
The  mysteries  of  Bacchus  and  the  Egyptian  worship 

1  Lecky,  ‘  European  Morals,’  i.  177. 

!  Cf.  Merivale,  ‘  History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire,’ 
li.  512,  513. 


THE  ATTACK. 


75 


were,  in  the  interest  of  morality,  once  and  again  ex¬ 
pelled  from  Rome  by  the  Senate.  But  all  efforts  were 
in  vain.  The  corruption  in  morals  and  faith  was  too 
wide-spread.  The  old  Roman  religion  was  too  simple 
and  severe  to  compete  with  the  new,  attractive,  and 
sensual  worship.  And  so  in  the  Apologetic  period 
the  state  of  things  was  this : — There  was  a  religion 
which  would  not  bear  examination,  and  which  taught 
immorality.  It  had  gods  in  whom  many  did  not, 
in  any  sense,  believe;  and  whom  none,  whoever 
they  were,  could  respect.  Those  who  worshipped 
them  did  so  from  a  base,  and  not  an  ennobling,  fear. 
To  them,  sacrifice,  but  not  reverence,  was  due.  You 
might  ask  them  to  exercise  their  power  for  the  vilest 
objects.  If  your  prayers  were  unheard,  you  punished 
them  by  overturning  their  altars  and  dishonouring 
their  images.1 

It  was  evidently  not  a  difficult  task  for  the  Apologists 
to  attack  such  a  religion  as  this ;  indeed,  before  their 
attack  was  made,  the  defence  on  rational  grounds 
had  ceased.  Nevertheless,  though  the  heathen  re¬ 
ligion  had  ceased  to  have  any  moral  influence  on 
the  habits  of  the  people,  though  it  had  ceased  in  any 
sense  to  control  thought,  it  still  remained  a  mighty 
political  engine  not  to  be  meddled  with,  and  the 
force  of  superstition  was  never  more  strong.2  The 
man  who  did  not  believe  in  the  existence  of  a  god, 
believed  in  the  influence  of  the  stars,  and  dared  not 
disregard  omens.  The  people  who  made  the  gods  a 
laughing-stock  in  the  theatres,  believed  that  life  and 


1  Cf.  Lecky,  ‘European  Morals,’  i.  178. 


2  lb.  i.  179. 


76 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


prosperity  were  in  their  power.  So  the  attack,  though 
easy  in  one  respect,  was  very  dangerous  in  another. 
You  might,  if  you  pleased,  like  the  philosophers, 
expose  the  folly  of  the  religion  of  the  gods,  but  you 
must  not  seek  to  overthrow  the  religion  of  the  State 
and  the  religion  of  the  people. 

And  now  to  notice  cerain  points  in  the  Apologetic 
attack;  and  first,  the  Polytheistic  nature  of  the  heathen 
religion. 

The  Apologists  argue  the  absurdity  of  supposing 
that  there  can  be  more  than  one  God  existing  from 
everlasting.  To  suppose  there  are  many  is  to  cir¬ 
cumscribe  the  power  of  each.1  Division  of  Deity 
destroys  the  perfection  of  Deity  ;  what  belongs  to 
the  one  god  is  wanting  to  the  other;  just  as  there  is 
only  room  for  one  ruler  in  an  empire,  for  one  general 
in  an  army,  and  one  master  in  a  house,  so  there  is 
only  room  for  one  God  in  the  universe.2  The  bees 
have  one  king,  the  flocks  one  leader,  amongst  the 
herds  there  is  one  ruler;  so  He  who  has  ordered 
and  who  governs  heaven  and  earth  is  One.  Even 
the  poets  have  announced  “  The  One  Father  of  gods 
and  men.”  The  philosophers,  though  differing  in 
the  way  they  express  the  truth,  teach  the  unity  of  the 
Divine  Power,  and  Mind,  and  Providence.3  One  of 
them4  tells  us,  “  The  gods  of  the  people  are  many, 
but  the  God  of  nature  is  One.” 

The  second  objection  to  the  heathen  religion  is  that 
it  is  a  worship  of  things  earthly  and  material.  Some 
of  the  Apologists  regard  it  as  mere  image-worship. 

1  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  i.  3.  2  Octavius,  c.  18. 

3  Octavius,  c.  19.  A  Antisthenes. 


THE  ATTACK. 


77 


Thus  Theophilus,  writing  to  Autolycus,  says,  he  had 
assailed  him  with  empty  words,  boasting  of  his  gods 
of  wood  and  stone,  hammered  and  cast,  carved  and 
graven,  which  neither  see  nor  hear,  for  they  are 
idols,  and  so  the  works  of  men’s  hands.1  So,  also, 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  who  asks,2 
“  Is  not  one  of  your  gods  a  stone,  similar  to  that  on 
which  we  tread  ?  Is  not  a  second  brass,  in  no  way 
superior  to  ordinary  vessels  ?  Is  not  a  third  wood, 
already  rotten?  Is  not  a  fifth  iron,  consumed  by 
rust?  Is  not  a  sixth  earthenware,  like  the  com¬ 
monest  vessel?  Did  not  the  sculptor  fashion  one, 
the  brazier  a  second,  the  silversmith  a  third,  and  the 
potter  a  fourth  ?  Are  they  not  all  deaf,  blind,  with¬ 
out  life,  destitute  of  feeling,  incapable  of  motion, 
liable  to  rot  ?  Do  not  ye  mock  and  insult  them  far 
more  than  the  Christians,  when  ye  worship  those 
made  of  stone  and  earthenware,  without  appointing 
any  persons  to  guard  them?  But  those  made  of  silver 
and  gold  ye  shut  up  by  night,  and  appoint  watchers 
to  look  after  them  by  day,  lest  they  be  stolen.” 

Arnobius,  especially,  is  scathing  in  his  sarcasm  on 
this  aspect  of  the  heathen  religion.3  Why  is  it,  he 
asks,  “  O  men,  that  you,  of  your  own  accord,  cheat 
and  deceive  yourselves  by  voluntary  blindness  ? 
These  images  which  fill  you  with  terror,  and  before 
whom  you  prostrate  yourselves,  were  compacted,  it 
may  be,  of  a  harlot’s  gauds  or  a  woman’s  ornaments,  of 
camels’  bones  or  elephants’  teeth,  of  cooking-pots  and 
little  jars,  of  candlesticks  and  lamps,  or  of  other  less 

1  Theoph.  ad  Aut.  i.  i.  2  Ad  Diognetum,  c.  2. 

3  Adv.  Gentes,  vi.  14-16. 


78 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


cleanly  vessels ;  and  having  been  melted  down  they 
were  cast  into  these  shapes,  and  came  out  the  forms 
which  you  see,  baked  in  potters’  furnaces,  produced 
by  anvils  and  hammers,  filed  down  with  files,  divided 
with  saws,  cleft  and  hewn  with  axes,  hollowed 
out  by  the  turning  of  borers,  and  smoothed  with 
planes.  Is  it  not  incredible  folly  to  believe  in,  to 
kneel  trembling  before,  a  god  which  you  yourself 
made  with  care,  which  is  the  product  of  the  labour 
of  your  hands  ?  Suppose  some  one  were  to  place 
copper,  silver,  gold,  etc.,  in  the  lump,  or  bits  of 
broken  statues  before  you,  and  were  to  bid  you  to 
slay  victims  and  give  divine  honours  to  them,  would 
you  obey?  You  answer,  No  one  is  so  stupid  as  to 
class  material  substances  like  these  among  the  gods.1 
What  then  !  Do  the  fashioning  and  the  working-up 
of  the  material,  the  receiving  of  the  form  of  a  man, 
give  the  power  of  deity  and  the  rank  of  heavenly 
beings?  Does  fashioning,  even,  change  copper  into 
gold,  or  compel  worthless  earthenware  to  become 
silver?  And  yet  you  men,  rational  beings,  sink  down 
before  pieces  of  baked  earthenware;  you  adore  plates 
of  copper ;  you  beg,  from  the  teeth  of  elephants, 
good  health,  office,  power,  gain,  good  harvests,  rich 
vintages.  Would  that  you  could  only  look  at  your  gods 
from  the  inside,  you  would  see  that  they  were  kept  from 
falling  to  pieces  by  dovetails,  and  clamps,  and  brace- 
irons.  You  would  see  that  lead  is  run  into  their  hollows 
and  joints  to  give  them  permanence.  You  would 
find  faces  without  the  back  parts  of  the  head,  hands 


1  Adv.  Gentes,  vi.  15. 


THE  ATTACK. 


79 


without  arms,  wood  and  stone  mixed  incongruously. 
But,  after  all,  it  is  not  necessary  to  look  inside.  Do 
you  not  see  those  images,  whose  feet  and  knees  you 
grasp  at  prayer,  falling  into  ruins  from  the  dropping 
of  rain,  decaying  and  becoming  rotten,  blackened  by 
the  smoke  of  the  sacrifices,  eaten  away  with  rust?  Do 
you  not  see  that  newts,  shrews,  mice,  and  cockroaches, 
which  shun  the  light,  build  their  nests  and  live  in 
the  hollow  part  of  these  statues?  that  they  gather 
carefully  all  kinds  of  filth  and  other  things  suited  to 
their  wants,  hard  and  half-gnawed  bread,  bones  laid 
up  for  a  time  of  scarcity,  rags,  down,  and  paper,  to 
make  their  nests  soft,  and  keep  their  young  warm  ? 
Do  you  not  see  sometimes  over  the  face  of  an  image 
cobwebs  and  treacherous  nets  spun  by  spiders  to 
entrap  imprudent  flies?  Do  you  not  see  the  swallows 
flying  within  the  temples,  bedaubing  the  mouths, 
beard,  eyes,  noses  of  the  deities  with  their  excrement  ? 
Blush,  and  learn  from  dumb  creatures  that  there  is 
nothing  divine  in  images,  into  which  they  do  not 
fear  or  scruple  to  cast  unclean  things. 

“  But  you  say,  These  images  are  not  themselves  the 
gods,  but  the  gods  dwell  in  them  as  dedicated  to 
their  use.  What !  do  the  gods  leave  heaven  to  dwell 
in  gypsum  and  earthenware  ?  Why  should  they 
prefer  these  prisons  to  their  starry  seats  ?  Are  they 
obliged  to  be  there, and  always  there?  or  have  they  free 
passage  to  go  when  and  where  they  please?  What  more 
wretched  beings  than  they,  if  hooks  and  leaden  bonds 
hold  them  fast  on  their  pedestals  ?  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  they  can  fly  forth  when  they  choose,  it  follows 
that  the  images  at  these  times  cease  to  be  gods,  and 


8o 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


sacrifices  should  not  be  then  offered  to  them.  Be¬ 
fore  you  sacrifice  you  ought  to  inquire  whether  the 
gods  are  at  home.  Then  does  each  god  dwell  wholly 
in  one  image,  or  is  he  divided  into  parts  and 
members  ?  There  are  ten  thousand  images  of  Vulcan 
in  the  world  :  can  he  be  at  one  time  in  all  the  ten 
thousand  ?  This  is  utterly  impossible,  seeing  he  has 
the  form  of  a  man.  The  whole  cannot  exist  with¬ 
out  its  parts.  If,  again,  the  gods  dwell  in  the 
images,  why  do  you  guard,  protect,  and  keep  them 
shut  up  under  the  strongest  keys,  iron  bars,  and 
bolts,  guarded  by  a  thousand  men  and  a  thousand 
women,  lest  some  thief  should  by  chance  enter 
in  ?  Why  do  not  the  gods  avenge  insults  like 
that  which  Dionysius  committed,  when  he  despoiled 
Jupiter  of  his  golden  vestment  and  gave  him 
one  of  wool  instead,  saying  that  gold  was  cold 
in  winter  and  heavy  in  summer,  whilst  wool  was 
fitted  for  both  seasons  ?  Why  do  they  not  deliver 
themselves  when  their  shrines  are  destroyed  by  earth¬ 
quake,  and  tempest,  and  fire,  or  robbed  by  their  own 
priests  from  within,  or  thieves  from  without  ? 

“The  images  are  neither  the  deities  themselves,  nor 
the  habitations  of  the  deities,  but  merely  the  repre¬ 
sentations  of  the  deities,  was  a  third  hypothesis. 
Pretty  representations  they  are,  was  the  reply. 
The  wanton  fancy  of  your  artist  has  given  forms  to 
your  gods  at  which  even  the  sternest  might  laugh ;  and 
your  celebrated  courtezans  have  been  models  for  your 
goddesses.  Under  any  circumstances,  how  do  you 
know  your  representations  are  correct  ?  It  may 
happen  that  in  heaven  one  has  a  beard,  who  by  you 


THE  ATTACK. 


8 1 


is  represented  with  smooth  cheeks ;  that  another  is 
advanced  in  years,  to  whom  you  give  the  appearance 
of  a  youth.  At  the  very  best  you  are  giving  your 
gods  the  forms  of  men.  Have,  then,  the  immortal 
gods  the  weaknesses  and  inconveniences  inseparable 
from  the  bodies  of  men  ? 

“What  shall  wre  say  then?”  says  Arnobius,1  “that 
the  gods  have  a  head  modelled  with  perfect  symmetry, 
bound  fast  by  sinews  to  the  back  and  breast,  and 
that  to  allow  the  necessary  bending  of  the  neck,  it 
is  supported  by  combinations  of  vertebrae  and  by 
a  bony  foundation  ?  But  if  we  believe  this  to  be 
true,  it  follows  that  they  have  ears  also,  pierced  by 
crooked  windings  ;  rolling  eyeballs  overshadowed  by 
the  edges  of  the  eyebrows;  a  nose,  placed  as  a  channel 
through  which  waste  fluids  and  a  current  of  air  might 
easily  pass ;  teeth  to  masticate  food,  of  three  kinds, 
and  adapted  to  three  services;  hands  to  do  their 
work,  moving  easily  by  means  of  joints,  fingers,  and 
flexible  elbows ;  feet  to  support  their  bodies,  regulate 
their  steps,  and  prompt  the  first  motions  in  walking. 
But  if  they  bear  these  things  which  are  seen,  it  is 
fitting  that  they  should  bear  those  also  which  the  skin 
conceals  under  the  framework  of  the  ribs.  You  say, 
also,  that  they  have  not  only  bodies  but  that  they 
have  aiso  sex.”2  “What  shall  we  say  then?  that  gods 
beget  and  are  begotten  ?  Who,  however  mean  his 
capacity,  does  not  know  that  the  sexes  have  been 
ordained  by  the  Creator  to  renew  and  maintain  that 
which  is  fleeting  and  transient  ?  Are,  then,  the 

1  Adv.  Gentes,  iii.  12. 


G 


lb.  iii.  8,  9. 


82 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


gods  mortal  ?  If  not,  countless  heavens  will  not  be 
able  to  contain  the  multitude  of  their  offspring.” 

“Then  again,”  he  asks,  “if  the  gods  have  bodies,  are 
these  bodies  marked  by  a  difference  in  the  contour 
of  their  forms  P1  If  so,  seme  have  big  heads,  pro¬ 
minent  brows,  broad  brows,  thick  lips ;  others  of 
them  have  long  chins,  moles,  and  high  noses ;  these 
have  dilated  nostrils,  these  are  snub-nosed  ;  some  are 
chubby  from  a  swelling  of  their  jaws  or  growth  of 
their  cheeks ;  some  are  dwarfed,  others  are  tall  or  of 
middle  size ;  some  are  lean,  others  sleek  or  fat ; 
some  have  crisped  and  curled  hair,  others  are  shaven 
or  with  bald  and  smooth  heads.  Your  workshops 
show  and  point  out  that  our  opinions  are  not  false, 
inasmuch  as,  when  you  form  and  fashion  gods,  you 
represent  some  with  long  hair,  others  smooth  and 
bare ;  as  old,  as  youths,  as  boys,  swarthy,  grey-eyed-, 
yellow,  half-naked,  bare,  or,  that  cold  may  not  annoy 
them,  covered  with  flowing  garments  thrown  over 
them.”  “  Is  not  this  really  degrading,  most  impious, 
and  insulting,  to  attribute  to  the  gods  the  features  of 
a  frail  and  perishing  animal?” 

“But  you  say,  perhaps,  that  you  have  given  the  gods 
the  appearance  of  men  merely  to  do  them  honour,  and 
that  they  have,  indeed,  other  forms.2  Supposing  that 
asses,  dogs,  and  pigs  had  any  human  skill  in  con¬ 
trivance,  and  wished  to  do  us  honour  by  some  kind 
of  worship,  should  we  not  be  greatly  enraged  if  they 
determined  that  our  images  should  bear  and  assume 
the  fashion  of  their  OAvn  bodies  ?  Why  do  you  then 
insult  the  gods  in  a  similar  way  ?  ” 

1  Adv.  Gentes,  iii.  14.  2  lb.  iii.  16. 


THE  ATTACK. 


83 


“  Then  you  ascribe  to  the  gods  not  only  human 
bodies,  but  also  human  offices.1  You  represent  them, 
some  as  artificers,  some  physicians,  others  working  in 
wool,  sailors,  players  on  the  harp  and  flute,  hunters, 
shepherds,  and,  as  there  was  nothing  more,  rustics. 
And  that  god,  men  say,  is  a  musician  ;  and  this 
other  can  divine.  One  is  instructed  in  obstetric  arts, 
another  trained  up  in  the  science  of  medicine.  Is 
each,  then,  powerful  in  his  own  department?  and 
can  they  give  no  assistance,  if  their  aid  is  asked,  in 
what  belongs  to  another  ?  Why  should  the  gods  be 
acquainted  with  these  human  handicrafts,  and  arts, 
and  sciences?  Are  there  forests  in  heaven  that  Diana 
may  hunt?  Are  the  gods  liable  to  diseases  and  wounds, 
so  that  the  assistance  of ^Esculapius  is  needed?  Do  they 
engage  in  agriculture  or  in  war,  so  that  they  require 
Vulcan’s  tools  or  weapons?  Do  they  need  to  be  covered 
with  garments,  so  that  Minerva  has  to  spin  and  weave 
cloth,  and  make  tunics  suited  to  the  season  of  the 
year  ?  Surely,  neither  the  divine  necessities  nor  the 
divine  nature  require  any  such  ingenuity  or  mechanical 
skill.” 

But  the  history  of  the  gods  is  the  most  favourite 
field  for  the  Apologetic  attack.  That  history  showed 
that  the  gods  had  a  beginning,  that  the  world  was 
created  before  them,  and  that  men  lived  before  them. 
That  history  showed  that  to  them  belonged  all  the 
weaknesses  of  weak  men,  the  unrestrained  passions 
of  bad  men,  and  the  most  heinous  crimes  of  the 
worst  of  men.  How  could  they  talk  of  the  immortal 
gods  when  their  sepulchres  were  with  them  unto  this 

1  Arn.  iii.  20. 

G  2 


84  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

day?  How  could  they  believe  the  legends  when 
they  were  not  consistent  one  with  another?  The 
theologians  spoke  of  three  Joves,  and  five  Junos,  and 
five  Mercuries,  and  five  Minervas.  Arnobius  pic¬ 
tures  the  five  Minervas  hovering  over  their  altar, 
and  each  claiming  for  herself  the  sacrifice  offered  to 
the  goddess  of  her  name.1  Following  the  various 
traditions,  he  represents  one  claiming  as  mother  of 
Apollo  and  Diana ;  the  second,  as  the  offspring  of 
the  Nile;  the  third,  as  the  warlike  descendant  of 
Saturn ;  the  fourth,  as  the  goddess  who  sprang  from 
the  head  of  Jove;  the  fifth,  as  the  virgin  who  slew 
her  wicked  father  Pallas.  What  judge,  he  asks,  is 
to  decide  between  such  great  personages  ?  Would 
it  not  be  better,  on  the  whole,  for  a  man  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  any  of  them,  lest,  sacrificing  to 
one,  and  perhaps  the  wrong  one,  he  should  make 
enemies  of  the  rest?  The  Apologists  attack  the 
heathen  mythology  with  unnecessary  minuteness. 
We  cannot  follow  them  here  to  any  profit.  The 
story  of  the  lives  of  the  gods  is  too  corrupting  for 
men  to  read.  Truly  not  those  who  denied,  but  those 
who  invented  and  believed  such  stories,  were  the 
real  blasphemers  of  the  gods. 

The  untenability  of  the  heathen  mythology  in  its 
literal  meaning  had  been  seen  and  confessed  by  their 
own  writers.2  Some  of  them  said  that  it  was  not 
intended  to  be  history,  but  allegory.  The  gods  were 
the  powers  of  nature  personified.  According  to  the 
Stoic  explanation,  “  Neptune  was  the  sea,  Pluto  was 


1  Arn.  adv.  Gentes,  iv.  16. 


2  lb.  iv.  32. 


THE  ATTACK. 


85 

fire,  Hercules  represented  the  strength  of  God, 
Minerva  His  wisdom,  Ceres  His  fertilizing  energy.”1 
According  as  the  power  of  God  was  manifested,  in 
heaven  or  on  earth,  in  the  sea  or  in  hell,  He  had 
different  names  given  Him.  The  objection  to  this 
theory  was  that  it  did  not  account  for  the  facts.  You 
might  thus  make  a  pretty  little  allegory  here  and  there, 
but  the  mass  of  the  stories  became  nothing  but  non¬ 
sense.  Besides,  why,  it  was  asked,  was  it  necessary  to 
put  pure  ideas  into  an  obscene  dress  ?  2  The  result 
was,  that  what  was  venerable  was  vilely  spoken  of, 
and  the  basest  deeds  were  ascribed  to  the  gods. 

But,  after  all,  said  the  Romans,  the  religion  of  the 
gods  is  true,  for  it  is  by  worshipping  them  that 
Rome  has  reached  its  present  height  of  prosperity. 
You  put  the  cart  before  the  horse,  is  the  Apologetic 
answer.  Rome’s  prosperity  preceded  Rome’s  worship 
of  the  gods.3  The  first  Romans  were  “  abandoned, 
profligate,  incestuous,  assassins,  and  traitors  ”  ;  and 
the  Roman  State  laid  its  foundations  in  blood  and 
rapine.  Irreligious  Romulus  preceded  pious  Numa. 
The  Romans  have  ever  been  wont  first  to  conquer  a 
nation,  and  then  to  worship  its  gods.  Is  it  possible, 
then,  that  they  owe  their  prosperity  to  powers  which 
could  not  defend  their  own  worshippers  ?  They  con¬ 
quered  gods  and  spoiled  their  temples,  before  they 
professed  to  adore  them  and  conquer  by  them.  The 
truth  is,  the  Romans  are  not  so  great  because  they 
are  religious,  but  because  they  have  been  sacrilegious 
with  impunity.  But,  you  say,  see  what  disasters  have 

1  Lecky,  ‘  European  Morals,’  i.  1 71. 

*  Arn.  v.  40,  41.  3  Octavius,  c.  26. 


86 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


resulted  from  neglecting  the  auguries.  Well,  it  is  quite 
true,  Clodius  and  Flaminius  and  Julius  would  not 
wait  for  the  greedy  pecking  of  the  chickens,  and  after¬ 
wards  lost  their  armies.  But  what  about  Regulus  ?  he 
observed  the  auguries,  and  was  taken  captive.  Paulus 
had  greedy  chickens  at  Cannae,  and  yet  he  was  utterly 
overthrown.  Caius  Caesar  despised  the  auspices,  and 
conquered  all  the  more  easily  and  quickly.  Thus 
there  are  facts  on  both  sides. 

But  what  was  the  secret  of  the  power  of  the  false 
religions  over  men  ?  The  Apologetic  answer  is,  “  The 
demons  or  evil  spirits.’' 1  They  describe  their  origin, 
nature,  and  method  of  working.  They  reckon  them 
to  be  the  offspring  of  the  intercourse  of  the  sons  of 
God  with  the  daughters  of  men.  They  are  spiritual 
beings  whose  great  business  is  the  ruin  of  mankind, 
body  and  soul.  Unseen  and  unfelt,  their  working  can 
only  be  traced  in  its  effects.  They  are  everywhere  in 
a  single  moment,  the  whole  world  is  as  one  place  to 
them.  They  are  the  poison  in  the  breeze  which 
blights  the  produce  of  the  earth,  in  bud,  and  flower, 
and  maturity.  They  are  the  taint  in  the  atmosphere 
which  spreads  the  pestilence.  They  breathe  into  the 
soul  and  rouse  up  its  latent  corruption.  They  hung 
upon  the  lips  of  the  prophets  and  learned  thus  the 
course  of  future  events,  and  then  set  up  false  Christs 
and  false  prophets.  They  inspired  the  oracles  ;  hence 
it  was  the  Pythian  at  Delphi  was  able  to  declare  so 
wonderfully  what  Croesus  was  at  that  moment  doing 
in  far-off  Lydia;  the  demon  inspiring  the  oracle 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  22,  23;  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  ii.  1 5— ;  Just. 
Apol.  i.  54-57,  11.  5* 


THE  ATTACK. 


87 


had  gone  and  returned  in  a  moment.  They  give  dis¬ 
ease  in  order  to  have  the  credit  of  curing  it,  and  all 
in  order  that  men  should  believe  in  the  deity  of 
stones,  and  not  seek  after  the  only  true  God.  Powerful 
as  they  are,  they  quail  when  adjured  by  Christians  in 
the  most  sacred  Name.  “  Fearing  Christ  in  God,  and 
God  in  Christ,  they  become  subject  to  the  servants 
of  God  and  Christ.  So  at  our  touch  and  breath, 
overwhelmed  by  the  thought  and  realization  of  the 
judgment  fires,  they  leave  at  our  command  the  bodies 
they  have  entered,  unwilling,  distressed,  and  ashamed 
before  your  presence.”  1 

This  connection  of  the  heathen  idols  with  devils  was 
a  matter  of  considerable  practical  importance  to  the 
Christians.  The  philosophers  had  no  objection  to  offer 
sacrifice  or  burn  incense  to  gods  which  had  no  exist¬ 
ence.  They  considered  such  an  act  to  have  no 
meaning  in  itself,  but  to  be  part  of  their  duty  as 
citizens  of  the  State.  It  did  them  no  harm,  and  it  did 
others  good.  They  regarded  it  as  we  should  regard 
some  of  the  forms  of  society  or  ceremonies  of  public 
life.  But  the  Christians,  believing  the  temples  to  be 
the  dwelling-places,  and  the  sacrifices  to  be  the  food, 
of  devils,2  regarded  all  participation  in  the  ceremonies 
of  the  heathen  religion  as  nothing  less  than  devil- 
worship.  They,  unlike  the  philosophers,  owed  allegi¬ 
ance  to  a  master,  Christ  they  owned  as  their  Lord.3 
To  share,  to  the  slightest  degree,  in  any  idolatrous 
ceremony  was  to  forsake  that  allegiance,  and  to  join  in 
covenant  with  that  devil  whom  at  their  baptism  they 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  23,  24.  2  Athenagoras,  c.  26. 

3  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  v.  20,  21. 


88 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


had  renounced.  They  could  not,  for  one  moment, 
take  refuge  in  the  plea  of  the  unmeaningness  and 
emptiness  of  the  act.  It  was  to  them  nothing  less 
than  replacing  a  broken  yoke  of  bondage  round 
their  necks.  Moreover,  why  should  they  worship 
beings  of  inferior  power  to  themselves  ?  The  weakest 
Christian,  they  believed,  was  by  the  power  of  Christ 
stronger  than  the  strongest  devil.1  Your  divinities 
are  subject  to  us  Christians,  and  we  are  ready  to  prove 
it  to  you  openly  any  day,  is  Tertullian’s  taunt.  God 
has  enlightened  our  eyes,  and  delusions  of  devils 
have  no  longer  power  to  deceive  us,  is  the  assertion 
of  many  Apologists.2  With  such  a  belief  a  Christian 
could  have  no  trifling  with  any  idolatrous  ceremony 
lest  he  should  be  again  taken  captive  to  do  the 
•devil’s  will. 

Such  are  the  main  points  of  the  Apologetic  attack 
on  the  heathen  religion.  As  we  have  seen,  very  real 
in  its  power,  very  noxious  in  its  influence,  that  religion 
seemed.  To  the  light  and  liberty,  love  and  purity, 
of  the  religion  of  Christ,  it  presented  a  most  fearful 
•contrast.  What  wonder  is  it  that  the  defenders  of  the 
faith  could  not  help  attacking  it  in  season  and  out 
of  season?  The  importance  of  their  attack  to  us  lies 
in  this.  From  it  we  learn  what  the  world  was  before 
the  Christian  revelation.  We  see  the  gods  which 
men  invented  for  themselves,  and  we  learn  to  prize 
more  highly  the  light  which  we  enjoy. 

But  Christianity  had  a  more  dangerous  enemy  than 
the  religion  of  the  gods,  viz.  the  heathen  philosophy. 

1  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  iv.  27  ;  Tert.  Apol.  c.  23. 

2  Just.  Apol.  i.  5  ;  Athenagoras,  c.  27  ;  Tert.  Apol.  c.  22,  23. 


THE  ATTACK.  89 

To  it,  and  not  to  religion,  the  wisest  men  turned  when 
seeking  a  remedy  for  the  corruptions  of  the  age. 

Pure  and  noble  as  much  of  the  heathen  philosophy 
was,  it  was  not  difficult  to  attack  it  on  the  practical 
side.  It  had  destroyed  the  heathen  religion,  but  it 
could  put  nothing  in  its  place.  By  its  own  confession 
it  had  done  nothing,  and  could  do  nothing.  It  dis¬ 
claimed  pronouncing  with  certainty  on  any  matter. 1 
All  human  things  were  dubious.  Probabilities,  not 
truths,  were  the  results  of  its  inquiries.  After  many 
years  of  inquiry  it  deliberated  still.  It  was  not  given 
to  man  to  know  what  is  above  the  earth  or  under  the 
earth.  It  was  not  wise  for  him  to  wander  beyond  his 
earthly  limits.  The  wisest  of  men  had  said,  “  That 
which  is  above  us  concerns  us  not.”  2  The  confession 
of  ignorance  is  the  height  of  wisdom  to  which  man 
can  attain.  The  longer  the  research,  the  obscurer 
the  truth  became. 

This  was  all  the  wise  men  of  the  world  could  do 
for  it.  They  could  expose  error,  but  they  could  not 
discover  truth.3  They  searched  into  the  darkness, 
and  they  brought  back  no  tidings  of  a  guiding  light, 
they  said,  The  darkness  deepens  the  further  we  go.4 
The  study  of  philosophy  brought  with  it  no  joy,  but 
an  ever-increasing  conviction  that  man  was  born  to 
sorrow,  and  that  there  was  no  well-founded  hope  of  a 
life  beyond  the  grave.5  “  All  hope  abandon  ye  who 
enter  here,”  was  the  inscription  which  first  met  the 
eye  of  the  student  in  the  Stoic  school.  The  world 

1  Octavius,  c.  5.  2  lb.  c.  13. 

3  So  Cicero  lamented. 

*  Dollinger’s  ‘Jew  and  Gentile,’  ii.  129. 


5  lb. 


90 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


and  men  will  be  destroyed,  because  of  their  wicked¬ 
ness  ;  the  new  world  and  new  race  will  soon  be  just 
as  bad,  was  Seneca’s  teaching.1  “  Let  us  eat  and  drink, 
for  to-morrow  we  die,’5  was  the  true  philosophy  of  life. 
On  the  tombs  are  found  such  inscriptions  as  these : 2 
“  What  I  have  eaten  and  drunk,  that  I  take  with  me; 
what  I  have  left  behind  me,  that  have  I  forfeited.” 
“  Reader,  enjoy  thy  life;  for  after  death  there  is  neither 
laughter  nor  play,  nor  any  kind  of  enjoyment.”  The 
old  heathen  stories  of  the  other  world  were  false. 
“  Pilgrim,  stay  thee,  listen  and  learn.  In  Hades 
there  is  no  ferry-boat,  nor  Charon,  the  ferryman  ;  no 
JEacus  or  Cerberus  ;  once  dead,  we  are  all  alike.”  3 
The  philosophers  could  see  the  whole  creation  groan¬ 
ing  and  travailing  in  pain,  but  to  them  the  pangs  were 
pangs  of  death,  and  not  pangs  of  birth.  They  were 
able  to  discern  evil  in  the  world,  but  they  knew  of  no 
deliverance.  They  became  doubtful  of  such  a  thing 
as  divine  justice  in  life,  and  incredulous  of  a  retribution 
after  death.  They  were  not  certain  whether  human 
affairs  were  set  agoing  by  destiny  and  immutable 
necessity,  or  by  hazard.4  Most,  of  all  things,  they 
needed  an  example.  The  Stoics  admitted  that  the 
ideal  man  had  never  yet  appeared  upon  the  earth.5 
Cicero  describes  the  rapture  with  which  such  an  one 
would  be  received.  There  was  not  amongst  them, 
as  amongst  the  Jews,  a  well-grounded  expectation  of 
“One  who  should  come”  to  be  the  Deliverer  from 
evil  and  the  Example  of  good.  The  indefinite  hope 

1  Dollinger’s  ‘  Jew  ancl  Gentile,’  ii.  126. 

2  Quoted  by  Dollinger,  ii.  14.  3  lb.  p.  139. 

*  Cicero  de  Repub.  vi.  24 ;  Octavius,  c.  5.  5  Dollinger,  ii.  1 29. 


THE  ATTACK.  91 

of  the  coming  golden  age,  which  was  all  any  heathen 
had,  was  to  them  but  a  popular  superstition. 

And,  indeed,  philosophy  in  early  Christian  times, 
had,  like  all  other  things,  degenerated.1  The  Apolo¬ 
gists  constantly  describe  the  vices  of  its  professors.2 
In  the  case  of  many,  the  philosophic  garb  was  their 
only  claim  to  the  name  philosopher.  Tatian  describes 
them  as  men  who  left  uncovered  one  of  their  shoulders, 
who  let  their  hair  grow  long,  who  cultivated  their 
beards,  and  who  allowed  their  nails  to  become  like 
the  claws  of  wild  beasts.  They  said  they  wanted 
nothing,  and  wanted  many  things.  They  spoke  with 
an  assumption  of  authority,  and  revenged  themselves 
if  contradicted  ;  they  indulged  in  abuse  if  they  were 
unpaid,  and  their  philosophy  was  but  the  art  of  getting 
money.  Lactantius3  gives  Seneca’s  definition  of  philo¬ 
sophy,  viz.,  “The  right  method  of  living,  or  the  art 
of  passing  a  good  life  ”  ;  and  then  he  goes  on  to  say 
that  of  philosophers  there  has  been  seldom  one  who  has 
done  anything  praiseworthy  in  his  life.  “Who  is  there,” 
he  asks,  “  who  does  not  see  those  men  are  not  teachers 
of  virtue,  who  are  themselves  destitute  of  virtue  ?  for 
if  any  one  should  diligently  inquire  into  their  charac¬ 
ter,  he  will  find  they  are  passionate,  covetous,  lustful, 
arrogant,  wanton,  and  concealing  their  devices  under 
a  show  of  wisdom,  doing  those  things  at  home  which 
they  had  censured  in  the  schools.” 

This  defect  in  the  philosophers  was  confessed  by  the 
heathen.  Cicero  said  4  there  were  few  who  thought 

1  Dollinger,  ii.  156.  2  Tatian,  Orat  c.  2. 

3  Div.  Inst.  iii.  15. 

4  Quoted  by  Lactantius,  Div.  Inst.  iii.  15. 


92  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

true  instruction,  not  a  display  of  knowledge,  but  a  law 
of  life  ;  few  who  were  obedient  to  themselves  and  sub  • 
mitted  to  their  own  decrees.  Some  were  so  filled  with 
levity  and  ostentation,  that  they  had  better  not  have 
learned  at  all.  Some  were  eagerly  desirous  of  money, 
others  of  glory.  Many  were  the  slaves  of  lusts,  so 
that  their  speech  Wonderfully  disagreed  with  their  life. 
Cornelius  Nepos  said,  none  had  greater  need  of 
teachers  of  living  than  those  who  discussed  a  rule  of 
life.  Seneca  said,  that  philosophers  denouncing 
avarice,  lust,  and  ambition,  seemed  to  be  making  a 
description  of  themselves.  They  were  like  physicians 
whose  advertisements  contained  medicine,  and  their 
medicine-chests  poison.  Most  clever  were  they  at 
inventing  excuses  for  committing  unphilosophic  crimes 
in  a  philosophic  manner.  Seneca  also  said,  the 
philosophers  were  not  ashamed  of  their  vices,  but 
invented  defences  for  their  baseness,  that  they  might 
appear  even  to  sin  with  honour.  They  would  not 
abandon  good  morals,  but  adapt  them  to  the  occa¬ 
sion  ;  all  things  which  the  luxurious  and  ignorant  do, 
the  wise  man  also  will  do,  but  not  in  the  same  manner, 
and  with  the  same  purpose.  Aristippus,  the  philo¬ 
sopher,  defended  his  own  immoralities  by  saying  he 
committed  them  in  a  spirit  differing  from  that  of  the 
really  immoral.  So  the  criticism  of  Cicero  1  was  just ; 
— that  the  disputations  of  the  philosophers,  though 
containing  most  abundant  fountains  of  virtue  and 
knowledge,  when  compared  with  their  practice,  seemed 
to  be  rather  a  pleasant  occupation  to  pass  the  time, 


1  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  iii.  16. 


THE  ATTACK. 


93 


than  advantage  in  the  business  of  life.  The  verdict 
of  Aristides1  was  fully  borne  out  when  he  said : — 
“  Their  greediness  is  insatiable,  their  pillage  of  others’ 
property  they  call  community  of  goods ;  their  envy  is 
nicknamed  philosophy,  they  call  beggary,  contempt 
of  money.  Haughty  to  all  others,  they  creep  before 
the  rich,  nay,  before  the  very  cooks  and  bakers  of  the 
rich.  Their  strength  lies  in  impudence,  and  asking, 
in  abuse,  and  in  calumny.”  And  again,  Quintilian, 
“  In  our  days  most  people  hide  their  worst  vices  under 
the  names  of  old  philosophers.”2 

Besides  all  this  the  philosophers  were  not  agreed 
amongst  themselves.  There  was  no  necessity  for 
the  Christians  to  refute  them,  they  refuted  one  an¬ 
other.  Their  teaching  was  nothing  but  a  confused 
babble  of  conflicting  voices.  Lactantius3  describes 
them  as  mad  with  the  desire  of  contradiction.  The 
disciples  of  one  school  condemned  all  others  as 
false  and  vain,  and  they  armed  themselves  for  battle, 
neither  knowing  what  they  ought  to  defend  or  what 
to  refute ;  and  they  made  attacks  everywhere,  with¬ 
out  distinction,  upon  all  the  views  of  their  opponents. 

Of  course,  the  consequence  was,  their  teaching  had 
no  power  to  influence  the  masses,  who  require  a  guide 
speaking  with  authority  and  clearness.  And,  indeed, 
philosophy  did  not  address  itself  to  the  many,  but  to 
the  rich  who  could  afford  a  fee,  or  to  the  well-educated 
in  science,  or  to  those  capable  of  abstract  thought.4 
As  for  all  the  rest  they  were  looked  down  upon  in 


1  Quoted  by  Dollinger,  ii.  157.  2  lb.  ii.  157. 

3  Div.  Inst.  vii.  7.  4  Just.  Dial.  c.  2. 


94 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


contempt,  and  left  to  their  irrational  superstition. 
They  were  as  the  people  who  knew  not  the  Law 
amongst  the  Jews.  Even  to  its  disciples  philosophy 
was  not  a  practical  guide.  The  questions  it  discussed 
were  words  and  names.  It  did  not  speak  to  the  heart, 
or  to  the  senses,  but  only  to  the  intellect  of  a  man. 
It  enunciated  certain  laws,  but  they  were  based  on  no 
rewards  or  punishments.  It  was  a  school  of  opinions, 
not  a  discipline  of  life.1 

And  if  to  the  Stoic  philosophers  many  of  these 
criticisms  do  not  apply,  if  there  were  amongst  them 
many  who  spoke  to  the  conscience  and  heart, 
still  remonstrances  of  vice  were  more  common  with 
them  than  exhortations  to  virtue.  They  uttered  them, 
despairing  of  any  good  result.  Their  teaching,  no 
less  than  that  of  the  other  philosophers,  was  utterly 
unfit  for  the  many,  and  the  basis  of  their  morality 
was  pride.2 

Against  these  slight  aims  and  slighter  results  of 
philosophy,  its  partial  application  and  its  unpractical 
nature,  the  Apologists  contrasted  the  Christian  reve¬ 
lation:  of  divine  nature  and  origin;  speaking  with 
authority  and  consistency ;  appealing  to  all,  learned 
and  unlearned,  rich  and  poor,  young  and  old ;  in  its 
very  essence  practical,  for  those  ceased  to  be  Chris¬ 
tians  in  name  who  were  not  Christians  in  life.  They 
have  an  Example  of  virtue,  they  have  rewards  of  virtue. 
Their  morality  is  based  not  on  pride  but  on  love. 
They  have  learned  the  truth,  God  has  revealed  it  to 
them. 

*  See  Merivale,  ‘Conversion  of  Roman  Empire,’  p.  94,  &c. 

2  Dollinger,  ‘  Jew  and  Gentile,’  ii.  125. 


THE  ATTACK. 


95 


The  Apologists  find  some  germs  of  truth  in  the 
writings  of  the  philosophers,  and  they  explain  the 
fact  in  various  ways.  Sometimes  they  charge  them 
with  borrowing  from  the  Hebrew  prophets;1  Plato 
especially  is  accused  of  borrowing  from  Moses.2 
Others  say  the  demons  inspired  them  with  their  know¬ 
ledge.  But  the  most  beautiful  account  is  given  by 
Justin.3  He  had  in  turn  tried  all  the  principal  sys¬ 
tems  of  philosophy,  and  insufficient  as  they  were  to 
satisfy  him,  he  still  retained  them  in  his  affection. 
He  loved  to  see  in  them  the  germs  of  Christianity, 
and  to  see  in  Christianity  their  full  development.  He 
was  not  satisfied  with  viewing  Christianity  alone ;  he 
viewed  it  in  relation  to  all  other  systems.  The  In¬ 
carnation  of  Christ  was  to  him  the  centre  point  of 
history,  to  which  all  the  teaching  of  Prophets  and 
philosophers  converged,  from  which  all  truth  radi¬ 
ated.  God  had  never  left  Himself  without  a  witness  ; 
He  had  been  working  in  the  minds  of  men  who  knew 
Him  not  by  name.  All  this  was  done  by  His  Word. 
The  Incarnate  Word  brought  to  their  full  development 
those  truths  of  which  the  Seminal  Word  had  been 
depositing  the  germ.  All  men,  he  believed,  had  been 
partakers  of  the  Word.  The  proof  of  this  lay  in 
the  lives  of  men.  Not  all  were  partakers  alike;  the 
communication  was  according  to  capacity.  The  de¬ 
mons  hate  and  persecute  all  who  have  in  any  manner 
been  partakers  of  The  Word. 

Not  all  the  Apologists  can  see  so  much  to  admire 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  47. 

2  Just.  Hort.  c.  26,  29,  31  ;  Just.  Apol.  i.  59,  60. 

3  Apol.  i.  46,  ii.  7-10,  13. 


96 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


in  the  philosophic  system.  Tertullian  especially 
regards  it  as  a  thing  utterly  alien  from  Christ  and 
Christians.1  He  never  refers  to  it  except  to  denounce 
it.  Its  wisdom  can  do  nothing  but  corrupt.  He 
asks,  “  Is  there  any  likeness  between  the  Christian  and 
the  philosopher?  Between  the  disciple  of  Greece 
and  the  disciple  of  Heaven  ?  Between  the  man 
whose  object  is  fame  and  the  man  whose  object  is 
life  ?  Between  the  talker  and  the  doer  ?  Between 
the  man  who  builds  up  and  the  man  who  pulls  down  ? 
Between  the  friend  and  the  foe  of  error  ?  Between 
one  who  corrupts  the  truth  and  one  who  restores  and 
teaches  it  ?  Between  its  thief  and  its  guardian  ?  ” 

Tertullian  looks  at  philosophy  from  its  practical 
side  and  in  his  narrow  spirit,  and  he  can  see  nothing 
but  its  defects.  To  those  who  realize  the  truth  of  St. 
John’s  teaching,  that  The  Word  “was  the  true  Light 
which  lighteth  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world,”2 
Justin’s  theory  will  appear  to  be  nearer  the  truth. 
Still  we  have  seen  enough  to  assure  us  also  of  the 
truth  of  St.  Paul’s  words,  “  The  world  by  wisdom 
knew  not  God.”  3 

Lactantius4  gives  to  us  a  very  apt  conclusion  to  this 
chapter.  “  The  sum  of  the  matter  is  this  :  the  un¬ 
learned  and  the  foolish  esteem  false  religions  as  true, 
because  they  neither  know  the  true  nor  understand 
the  false.  But  the  more  sagacious,  because  they  are 
ignorant  of  the  true,  either  persist  in  those  religions 
which  they  know  to  be  false,  that  they  may  appear  to 


1  Apol.  c.  46. 
3  1  Cor.  i.  21. 


2  John  i.  9. 

4  Div.  Inst.  ii.  3. 


J 


THE  ATTACK.  97 

possess  something ;  or  worship  nothing  at  all,  that  they 
may  not  fall  into  error ;  whereas  this  very  thing  par¬ 
takes  largely  of  error,  under  the  figure  of  a  man  to 
imitate  the  life  of  cattle.  To  understand  that  which  is 
false,  is  truly  the  part  of  wisdom,  but  of  human  wisdom. 
Beyond  this  step  the  man  cannot  proceed,  and  thus 
many  of  the  philosophers  have  taken  away  religious 
institutions,  as  I  have  pointed  out ;  but  to  know  the 
truth  is  the  part  of  divine  wisdom.  But  man  of  him¬ 
self  cannot  attain  to  this  knowledge  unless  he  is  taught 
by  God.” 


98 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 

We  come  now  to  the  Apologists*  description  of  Chris¬ 
tians  and  Christianity.  We  must,  now  as  before,  bear 
in  mind  their  object;  namely,  to  defend  themselves, 
not  to  convince  the  heathen.  Their  appeal  is,  Put  a 
stop  to  the  persecutions  ;  not,  Become  Christians. 
So  their  account  of  themselves  and  their  religion  is 
mainly  intended  to  answer  accusations  and  misrepre¬ 
sentations.  They  could  best  show  what  they  were 
not,  by  describing  what  they  were. 

We  have  already  noticed  the  Apologetic  account  of 
the  heathen  deities ;  let  us  now  contrast  with  it  Ter- 
tullian’s  description1  of  the  Christians’  God.  “The 
object  of  our  worship  is  the  One  God  ;  He  who  by  His 
commanding  word,  His  arranging  wisdom,  His  mighty 
power,  brought  forth  from  nothing  this  entire  mass  of 
the  world,  with  all  its  array  of  elements,  bodies,  and 
spirits,  for  the  glory  of  His  majesty ;  whence  also  the 
Greeks  havebestowed  on  it  the  name  of  Cosmos  (order). 
The  eye  cannot  see  Him,  though  He  is  visible.  He  is 
incomprehensible,  though  in  grace  He  is  manifested. 
He  is  beyond  our  utmost  thought,  though  our  human 


1  Apo7  t.  1 7. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  99 

faculties  conceive  of  Him.  He  is  therefore  equally 
real  and  great.  That  which,  in  an  ordinary  way,  can 
be  seen,  and  handled,  and  estimated,  is  inferior  to 
the  eyes  by  which  it  is  taken  in,  and  the  hands  by 
which  it  is  touched,  and  the  faculties  by  which  it  is 
discovered  ;  but  that  which  is  infinite  is  known  to 
itself.  Hence  we  are  enabled  to  make  an  estimate 
of  God,  while  at  the  same  time  He  does  not  admit 
of  our  estimation.  Thus  the  force  of  His  greatness 
presents  Him  to  men,  as  at  once  known  and  un¬ 
known.  And  this  is  the  crowning  guilt  of  men,  that 
they  will  not  recognize  one  of  whom  they  cannot 
possibly  be  ignorant.” 

The  superiority  of  the  Christian  conception  of  God 
does  not  need  pointing  out ;  but  it  is  worth  while 
noticing  that  Tertullian  is  defining  his  position  against 
both  classes  of  his  antagonists.  As  against  votaries 
of  the  religion  of  the  gods  he  says,  God  is  incompre¬ 
hensible,  God  is  infinitely  great.  As  against  the 
philosophers  he  says,  God  is,  and  He  is  manifested. 
We  know  something  concerning  Him,  though  we  can¬ 
not  know  all. 

We  notice  next  the  Apologetic  teaching  concerning 
God’s  Providence.  In  no  particular  is  the  superiority 
of  the  Christian  religion  to  the  heathen  more  dearly 
to  be  seen,  than  in  its  conception  of  God’s  dealings 
with  mankind. 

The  heathen  deities  did,  indeed,  concern  themselves 
with  the  affairs  of  earth,  being  in  fact  men  on  a  larger 
and  more  powerful  scale ;  they  came  and  meddled 
and  tyrannized  amongst  men  in  much  the  same  way 
as  a  few  big  boys  might  in  a  school  of  little  ones ; 

h  2 


IOO 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


like  them,  taking  opposite  sides  in  any  dispute,  utterly 
unreasonable  in  their  likes  and  dislikes,  and  thwarting 
each  other  to  the  best  of  their  power.  But  they  were 
confessedly  not  all-powerful  beings.  There  was  a 
power  above  them  of  which  they  were  conscious,  but 
whose  dealings  were  so  little  understood  that  they 
gave  it  no  form.1  Against  this  abstract  power,  which 
they  called  Fate,  it  was  useless  to  struggle, — gods  and 
men  were  alike  powerless  in  its  hands.  Christianity 
came  in  with  its  flood  of  light  and  transformed  the 
abstract  Fate  into  a  personal  God,2  who  watched  over 
His  creatures  with  all  the  tenderness  of  a  Father,  and  all 
the  power  of  an  Almighty  Being.  The  heathen  never 
imagined  that  close  personal  attention  extending  to 
thoughts  and  words,  that  ever-watchful,  ever-present 
care  which  the  Christian  represented  his  God  as  exer¬ 
cising  over  the  affairs  of  men.  Such  ideas  appeared 
to  him  absurd.3  In  the  language  of  the  heathen  in 
the  Octavius  of  Minucius  Feli-x,4  “  What  strange 
and  portentous  imaginations  do  the  Christians  form 
to  themselves  concerning  their  Deity  !  that  this  God 
of  theirs,  whom  they  cannot  show  to  others,  nor 
themselves  see,  carefully  examines  into  the  disposi¬ 
tions  of  all  men,  and  into  the  behaviour  of  all  men, 
and  even  into  their  words  and  most  secret  thoughts. 
They  describe  Him  as  continually  running  hither 
and  thither,  and  as  present  everywhere ;  as  a  Being, 
troublesome,  restless,  and  immoderately  inquisitive ; 
who  at  all  actions  is  a  bystander,  and  who  strays 

1  Tat.  Orat.  c.  8,  9  ;  Arn.  adv.  Gentes,  i.  34,  vii.  io. 

2  Octavius,  c.  36.  3  Origen  c.  Celsum,  iv.  99. 

4  Octavius,  c.  10. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


IOI 


into  every  place ;  although  it  is  impossible  that  He 
should  regard  particulars  while  attentive  to  the  whole, 
or  be  sufficient  for  the  whole  while  He  is  occupied 
about  particulars.” 

The  Christian  replies,1  “  All  things  celestial  and 
earthly  are  known  to  Him,  and  full  of  Him.”  “  He 
is  in  all  places  most  near  to  us ;  nay,  He  is  infused 
into  us  all.  Consider  again  the  sun,  fixed  in  heaven, 
and  yet  spread  over  the  whole  earth;  he  is  equally 
present  in  all  places,  and  blended  with  the  whole 
creation,  and  everywhere  his  brightness  remains  in¬ 
violate.  How  much  more  is  God,  who  made  and 
who  surveys  all  things, — how  much  more  is  He 
present  in  darkness,  and  present  even  in  that  pro¬ 
found  darkness — our  thoughts !  We  not  only  act 
under  His  inspection,  but,  I  had  almost  said,  we  live 
with  Him.”  “  Neither  let  us  men  amuse  ourselves 
with  the  fond  hope  of  impunity  because  of  our  num¬ 
bers.  In  our  own  sight  we  are  many,  but  to  God  we 
appear  very  few.  We  make  distinctions  of  peoples 
and  countries,  but  to  Him  the  whole  world  is  as  one 
house.  Kings  are  not  otherwise  acquainted  with  the 
details  of  their  dominions  than  by  the  ministration  of 
nferior  officers;  but  God  needs  not  to  be  informed  of 
anything,  for  we  live  not  only  under  His  eyes,  but  in 
His  bosom.” 

The  heathen  had,  as  we  have  seen,  many  gods ; 
they  gave  to  each  god  his  own  little  work  to  do  ;2 
and  yet  they  did  not  imagine  that  their  gods,  in  their 
limited  spheres,  exercised  that  providential  care,  which 


1  Octavius,  c.  32,  33. 


2  Orig.  c.  Celsum,  vii.  70,  viii.  58. 


102 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


the  Christian  believed  His  one  God  exercised,  in  every 
single  part  of  the  whole  universe. 

“  The  Immortality  of  the  Soul  ”  and  “  the  Resur¬ 
rection  of  the  Body  ”  were  doctrines  put  prominently 
forward  by  the  Apologists.  The  former  of  these  had 
been  taught  by  some  poets  and  philosophers,  but  it 
was  not  generally  received  or  practically  applied.  The 
heathen,  in  the  Octavius  of  Minucius  Felix,1  speaks 
of  it  as  a  fiction  of  a  crazed  fancy,  and  a  foolish  topic 
of  consolation  on  which  the  poets  have  sported  in 
melodious  and  deceitful  verse.  He  argues  that  the 
God  who  will  not  or  cannot  aid  his  own  in  this  life, 
cannot  be  able  to  restore  men  to  life  when  dead. 
“  It  is  madness,”  he  says,  “  to  promise  immortality 
after  death  and  extinction  to  us  men,  who,  as  we 
came  into  being,  must  also  cease  to  be.” 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Christians  accepted  these 
doctrines  as  the  practical  basis  of  their  life,  and  as  a 
sure  ground  of  confidence  in  the  hour  of  death.  “We,” 
says  Tertullian,2  “who  receive  our  awards  under  the 
judgment  of  an  all-seeing  God,  and  who  look  forward 
to  eternal  punishment  from  Him  for  sin ;  we  alone 
make  real  effort  to  attain  a  blameless  life.”  “  If  we 
believed,”  says  Athenagoras,3  “that  we  should  live  only 
the  present  life,  then  we  might  be  suspected  of  sinning; 
but  since  we  are  persuaded  that,  when  we  are  removed 
from  the  present  life,  we  shall  live  another  life,  better 
than  the  present  one,  and  in  heaven,  or,  perishing  with 
the  rest,  a  worse  one,  and  in  fire,  it  is  not  likely  that  we 
should  wish  to  do  evil,  or  deliver  ourselves  over  to 


1  Octavius,  c.  io,  n,  12. 


2  Apol.  c.  45.  3  Legat.  c.  31. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  103 

the  Great  Judge  to  be  punished.”  “After  death  I 
shall  exist  again,”  says  Tatian.1  “  Even  though  you 
destroy  all  traces  of  my  flesh,  the  world  receives  the 
vaporized  matter ;  and  though  dispersed  through 
rivers  and  seas,  and  torn  in  pieces  by  wild  beasts,  I 
am  laid  up  in  the  storehouses  of  a  wealthy  Lord.” 

The  Apologists  use  the  argument  from  analogy  to 
recommend  the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection  of  the 
Body  to  the  heathen.  The  world  bears  in  itself  a 
witness,  nay,  the  exact  image  of  the  resurrection. 
Light,  every  day  extinguished,  shines  out  again ;  and 
with  like  alternation,  darkness  comes  and  goes.  The 
defunct  stars  re-live ;  the  seasons,  as  soon  as  they  are 
finished,  renew  their  course ;  the  fruits  are  brought  to 
maturity,  and  are  then  reproduced.  The  seeds  do  not 
spring  up  with  abundant  produce,  save  as  they  rot 
md  dissolve  away ;  all  things  are  preserved  by  perish¬ 
ing,  all  things  are  refashioned  out  of  death.  Thou, 

man,  of  nature  so  exalted, . lord  of  all  these 

things  that  die  and  rise,  shalt  thou  die  to  perish  ever¬ 
more?  Thus  Tertullian,2  and  even  still  more  beauti¬ 
fully,  Minucius  Felix:3  “See,  therefore,  how  for  our 
consolation  all  nature  suggests  a  future  resurrection. 

'  The  sun  sinks  in  the  ocean  and  emerges.  The 
planets  glide  on  in  their  course  and  come  back ; 
the  flowers  fall  and  live  anew ;  after  a  temporary  old 
age,  the  shrubs  reassume  their  foliage;  and  seeds  must 
be  corrupted  before  they  can  put  forth  shoots.  So  is 
the  body  in  the  grave  :  it  resembles  trees,  which  in 
winter  conceal  their  vegetation  under  a  feigned  ap¬ 
pearance  of  withering.  Why  should  you  be  impatient 

1  Orat.  c.  6.  2  Apol.  c.  48.  3  Octavius,  c.  34. 


104  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

for  its  revival  and  restoration  while  winter  is  yet 
intense  ?  We  must  await  the  spring-time  of  the 
body.” 

Passing  on  to  the  doctrines  exclusively  Christian, 
we  find  the  Apologists  clearly  stating  who  the  founder 
of  their  religion  is.  “  Our  teacher  of  these  things,” 
says  Justin,1  “  is  Jesus  Christ,  who  also  was  born  for 
this  purpose  and  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate, 
procurator  of  Judaea,  in  the  times  of  Tiberius  Caesar ; 
and  we  reasonably  worship  Him,  having  learned  He  is 
the  Son  of  the  true  God  Himself.”  “  We  Christians,” 
says  Arnobius,  “  are  nothing  else  than  worshippers  of 
the  Supreme  King  and  Head,  under  our  Master, 
Christ.  If  you  examine  carefully,  you  will  find  that 
nothing  else  is  implied  in  our  religion.  This  is  the 
sum  of  all  that  we  do  ;  this  is  the  proposed  end  and 
limit  of  our  sacred  duties.  Before  Him  we  all  prostrate 
ourselves,  according  to  our  custom ;  Him  we  adore  in 
united  prayers ;  from  Him  we  beg  things  just  and 
honourable,  and  worthy  of  His  ear.”2 

Amongst  the  various  titles  of  our  Lord  perhaps 
“  The  Word  ”  is  the  one  most  commonly  used  by  the 
Apologists.  They  describe  His  work  as  the  revela¬ 
tion  of  God  to  man,  and  the  restitution  of  truth  to 
men.3  The  deeper  mysteries  concerning  sin  and 
atonement  were  kept  hidden  from  the  profane  gaze. 
Naturally,  also,  they  touch  but  seldom  on  the  doc¬ 
trines  of  His  Person  and  Nature.  Such  discussions 
would  have  been  out  of  place  in  Apologies  addressed 

1  Apol.  i.  c.  13.  2  Adv.  Gentes,  i.  27. 

3  Tert.  Apol.  c.  21  ;  Just.  Apol.  ii.  6,  10,  13;  Lact.  Div. 
Inst.  iv.  8. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  1 05 

to  unbelievers.  As  vindication  for  their  own  conduct 
in  taking  Him  as  their  Master  and  Teacher,  they  give 
three  reasons,  —  the  wisdom  and  morality  of  His 
words  and  deeds,  ancient  prophecies  concerning  Him, 
and  miracles  wrought  by  Him. 

The  first  of  these  was  easily  stated,  and  could  be 
easily  grasped,  and,  without  doubt,  came  home  to 
many  thoughtful  heathen  hearts.  Many  who  did  not 
acknowledge  Christ  as  their  Lord,  did  homage  to  the 
beauty  of  His  character,  the  purity  of  His  teaching, 
and  the  beneficence  of  His  life.  Tiberius  is  said  to 
have  wished  to  enrol  Christ  amongst  the  gods.1  On 
one  occasion  the  oracles  were  consulted  by  Pagans 
whether  Christ  might  be  worshipped  along  with  the 
other  gods.2  They  answered,  “  He  who  is  wise  knows 
that  the  soul  rises  immortal  from  the  body ;  but  the 
soul  of  that  man  is  pre-eminent  in  piety.”  When  they 
were  asked  why  Christ  suffered  death,  the  answer  was, 
“  To  be  subject  to  light  sufferings  is  always  the  lot  of 
the  body,  but  the  soul  of  the  pious  rises  to  the  fields 
of  heaven.”  Porphyry  takes  occasion  to  say  that 
Christ  must  not  be  calumniated,  though  he  condemns 
those  who  worship  Him.3  The  Emperor  Alexander 
Severus4  had  a  bust  of  Christ  in  his  Lararium.  He 
intended  to  have  caused  Christ  to  be  enrolled  amongst 
the  Roman  deities ;  and  he  constantly  repeated  the 
words  of  Christ :  “  As  ye  would  that  men  should  do 
to  you,  do  ye  also  to  them  likewise.”  The  purity  of 
Christ’s  teaching  and  life  was  then  a  fact  acknow- 

1  Tert.  Apol.  c.  5. 

2  Cf.  Neander,  ‘History  of  Church,’  i.  239. 

3  Neander,  ib.  4  lb.  i.  173. 


io6 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


ledged  by  many  heathen.  The  Apologists  make  use 
of  this.1  They  often  point  out  that  so  pure  a  teacher 
is  hardly  likely  to  have  as  his  followers  those  practising 
the  worst  of  crimes.  They  show  how  His  teaching 
extended  more  deeply  than  that  of  any  other  to  the 
words  and  thoughts  of  men.  “  We  alone,”  says  Ter- 
tullian,2  “are  without  crime.  Is  there  anything  wonder¬ 
ful  in  that,  if  it  be  a  very  necessity  with  us?  For  a 
necessity  it  is.  Taught  of  God  Himself  what  good¬ 
ness  is,  we  have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  it  as  revealed 
to  us  by  a  perfect  Master.”  The  Christian  idea  of 
virtue,  he  remarks,  did  not  rest  on  human  opinion, 
nor  was  it  a  matter  of  human  obligation.  And  which, 
he  asks,  was  the  ampler  rule,  “To  say,  ‘  Thou  shalt 
not  kill,’  or  to  teach,  ‘  Be  not  even  angry  ’  ?  ”  Which 
is  more  perfect,  to  forbid  adultery,  or  to  restrain  from 
even  a  single  lustful  look?  Which  indicates  the 
higher  intelligence,  interdicting  evil-doing  or  evil¬ 
speaking  ?  Which  is  more  thorough,  not  allowing  an 
injury,  or  not  even  suffering  an  injury  done  to  you  to 
be  repaid  ?” 

Very  commonly  the  Apologists  appeal  to  the  evi¬ 
dence  of  Prophecy  in  their  vindication  of  the  claims 
of  Christ  to  be  a  teacher  sent  from  God.  They 
allege  predictions  of  undoubted  antiquity  spread  over 
hundreds  of  years,  and  show  their  fulfilment  in  the 
life,  and  death,  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ.  This  argu¬ 
ment  was  far  more  subtle  than  the  former  one,  and 
required  great  discrimination  in  its  use.  The  Apologists 
cannot  be  said  to  have  had  the  discrimination  necessary. 

1  Just.  Apol.  i.  c.  15-17;  Athenagoras,  c.  32-35. 

2  Tert.  Apol.  c.  45. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  107 

They  always  seem  to  approach  the  subject  from  their 
stand-point  of  believers.  They  do  not  seem  at  all  able 
to  distinguish  between  those  prophecies  which  could 
serve  only  to  comfort  and  instruct  a  man  who  has 
already  accepted  the  truth,  and  those  which  might  con¬ 
vince  an  unbeliever  of  the  truth.  Justin  Martyr  is  a 
great  offender  in  this  respect.  In  his  Dialogue1  with 
the  Jew  Trypho  he  proves  that  the  twelve  bells  attached 
to  the  robes  of  the  high-priest  were  types  of  the  twelve 
Apostles,  and  then  goes  on  to  remark,  “  In  short,  by 
enumerating  the  other  appointments  of  Moses,  I  can 
demonstrate  that  they  were  types,  and  symbols,  and 
declarations  of  those  things  which  would  happen  to 
Christ,  of  those  who,  it  was  foreknown,  were  to  believe 
in  Him,  and  of  those  things  which  would  also  be  done 
by  Christ  Himself.” 

Origen  is  perhaps  the  most  cautious  in  selecting 
his  proofs  from  prophecy ;  but  no  Apologist  is  very 
happy  in  the  statement  of  this  part  of  his  case.  It 
may  indeed  be  doubted  whether  it  was  wise  in  them 
to  enter  into  any  prophetical  details.  For  the  due 
appreciation  of  the  evidence,  research,  conscientious 
beyond  all  expectation,  on  the  part  of  those  whom  they 
addressed,  was  required,  and  an  examination  of  books 
accessible  only  to  Jews.  It  was  quite  competent  for 
them  to  appeal  generally  to  the  evidence  of  the  ancient 
books  of  the  Old  Testament.2  The  Septuagint  trans¬ 
lation  had  made  them  comparatively  widely  known,  and 
the  Jews  were  the  guardians  of  their  integrity.  It  was 

1  Dialogue,  c.  42. 

2  So  Tertullian,  Apol.  c.  19;  Justin,  Apol.  i.  c.  31;  Theo- 
philus,  Letters  ii.  and  iii.  ;  Tatian,  29. 


io8 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


quite  competent  for  them  to  point  out  the  consistency 
and  harmony,  the  accuracy  and  extent  of  the  revela¬ 
tion  therein  contained.  They  could,  if  they  pleased, 
claim,  in  general  terms,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was 
He  whom  the  prophets  said  would  come,  and  rule, 
and  save.  Thus  doing,  they  would  have  given  their 
religion  that  antiquity  which  it  wanted  in  the  popular 
idea.1  But  it  is  probable  that,  in  going  further,  they 
wasted  their  time  and  energy,  and  defeated  their  pur¬ 
pose,  by  giving  arguments  beyond  ordinary  grasp. 
It  was  quite  understood,  and  practically  carried  out 
by  many  of  the  Apologists,  that  in  their  works  testi¬ 
monies  from  Scripture  were  out  of  place.2  The  words 
of  Lactantius3  are  well  worth  recording.  “  Cyprian,” 
he  says,  “  when  endeavouring  to  refute  Demetrian, 
did  not  handle  his  subject  as  he  ought  to  have  done ; 
for  he  (Demetrian)  ought  to  have  been  refuted,  not 
by  the  testimonies  of  Scripture,  which  he  plainly  con¬ 
sidered  vain,  fictitious,  and  false,  but  by  arguments 
and  reason.  For,  since  he  (Cyprian)  was  contending 
against  a  man  who  was  ignorant  of  the  truth,  he 
ought  for  a  while  to  have  laid  aside  divine  readings, 
and  to  have  built  up  from  the  beginning  this  man  as 
one  who  was  altogether  ignorant,  and  to  have  shown 
to  him  by  degrees  the  beginnings  of  light,  that  he 
might  not  be  dazzled  by  the  whole  of  its  brightness 
being  presented  to  him.” 

The  argument  from  the  miracles  of  Christ  was  not 

1  Ep.  to  Diognetus,  c.  i.  ;  Theophilus,  Letter  iii.  4 ;  Arno- 
bius,  i.  24  :  cf.  also  a  decree  of  Diocletian. 

2  Cf.  Tertullian’s  Apology,  but  not  Justin’s. 

3  Div.  Inst.  v.  4. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  109 

at  first  so  commonly  used  as  we  might  have  expected. 
Miracles  were  commonly  ascribed  to  magic,  and 
magicians  were  not  men  likely  to  obtain  the  respect  of 
any.  To  appeal  to  Christ’s  miracles  was  to  be  met  by 
the  retort  that  He  was  a  magician  and  imposter.1  The 
later  Apologists  deal  with  the  question.  Lactantius  2 
says  that  magic  has  no  power  except  to  deceive  the 
eyes.  Origen,  in  answer  to  Celsus,3  who  had  com¬ 
pared  Christ’s  miracles  to  the  tricks  of  jugglers,  com- 
pares  the  objects  and  the  agents  in  the  two  cases. 
The  dealers  in  magical  arts  performed  their  works  only 
for  show,  and  in  return  for  a  few  oboli.  They  never 
invited  the  spectators  to  reform  their  manners,  and 
indeed  their  own  lives  were  full  of  the  grossest  and 
most  notorious  sins.  Christ,  by  His  miracles,  induced 
those  who  beheld  them  to  change  their  lives,  and 
He  Himself  was  the  pattern  of  a  most  virtuous  life. 
Arnobius  draws  clearly  and  thoroughly  the  distinction 
between  Christ’s  miracles  and  those  of  all  others.4 
He  is  answering  the  charge  that  Jesus  was  a  magician, 
and  an  adept  at  secret  arts  stolen  from  Egypt.  He 
asks  what  magician  has  ever,  even  in  the  thousandth 
degree,  worked  miracles  like  Him?  The  magicians 
work  by  the  power  of  incantations,  the  juice  of  herbs 
and  grasses,  the  anxious  watching  of  sacrifices  and 
seasons,  and  by  the  invocation  of  deities.  Christ 

1  The  fragment  extant  of  the  Apology  of  Quadratus,  the  first 
Apologist,  shows  that  he  distinguished  between  Christ’s  miracles 
and  those  of  others.  Cf.  Eus.  H.  E.  iv.  3. 

2  Div.  Inst.  iv.  15.  3  C.  Celsum,  i.  68. 

4  Adv.  Gentes,  i.  43-55.  (This,  as  in  other  places,  is  Amo- 

bius’s  language  compressed.) 


no 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


worked  without  any  aid  from  external  things,  without 
the  observance  of  any  ceremonial,  without  any  fixed 
mode  of  procedure,  and  by  the  might  of  His  inherent 
power.  The  deeds  of  the  magicians  were  useless  and 
harmful.  They  consisted  in  the  infliction  of  diseases, 
the  stirring  of  discord,  the  revealing  of  secrets, 
the  “getting  at”  (to  use  a  modern  phrase)  horses, 
the  exciting  unlawful  love  by  philtres.  Christ  did 
nothing  hurtful  or  injurious,  but  only  that  which  was 
helpful  and  full  of  blessings  to  men.  Was  He  one  of 
us,  he  asks,  at  whose  voice  infirmities  and  diseases 
of  the  body  fled  away?  Was  He  one  of  us,  whose 
very  sight  the  race  of  demons  was  unable  to  bear  ? 
Was  He  one  of  us,  at  whose  word  the  raging  and  mad¬ 
dened  seas  were  still,  who  walked  over  the  deepest 
pools  with  unwet  foot,  who  with  five  loaves  satisfied 
five  thousand  of  His  followers  ?  Was  He  one  of  us, 
who  ordered  the  breath  that  had  departed  to  return 
to  the  body  ?  Was  He  one  of  us,  who  saw  clearly  in 
the  hearts  of  the  silent  what  each  was  pondering? 
Was  He  one  of  us,  who,  after  His  body  had  been  laid 
in  the  tomb,  manifested  Himself  in  open  day  to 
countless  numbers  of  men  ?  Was  He  one  of  us,  who 
appears  even  now  to  righteous  men  of  pure  mind  who 
love  Him,  whose  name  when  heard  puts  to  flight  evil 
spirits,  silences  the  soothsayers,  and  frustrates  the 
magicians  ?  Was  He  one  of  us,  who  conquered  those 
decrees  of  fate  to  which  even  the  gods  are  subject? 
Compare  Him  not  with  your  deities.  The  comparison 
will  not  hold.  They  have  at  times  relieved  disease  by 
medicine  ;  the  credit  is  due  to  the  drug,  not  to  the 
giver.  They  have,  it  is  said,  healed  a  few ;  but  how 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


Ill 


many  thousands,  life-long  suppliants,  have  been  sent 
empty  away  !  Christ  ordered  diseases  to  fly  from  men 
at  a  touch  and  a  word.  Christ  healed  all  who  came 
to  Him,  good  and  bad  alike.  And  more  wonderful 
still,  He  communicated  His  powers  to  others,  and  to 
whom  ?  fishermen,  artisans,  rustics,  and  unskilled  per¬ 
sons  of  a  similar  kind.  He  gave  them  the  power  to 
do  all  things  which  He  had  done. 

What  say  ye  ?  O  minds  incredulous,  stubborn,  hard¬ 
ened  !  Did  that  great  Jupiter  Capitolinus  of  yours 
give  to  any  human  being  power  of  this  kind  ?  Did  he 
endow  with  this  right  any  Pontifex  Maximus  ?  To  be 
able  to  transfer  to  a  man  your  own  power,  to  share 
with  the  frailest  being  the  ability  to  perform  that  which 
you  alone  are  able  to  do,  is  a  proof  of  power,  supreme 
over  all,  and  holding  in  subjection  the  causes  of  all 
things,  and  the  natural  laws  of  methods  and  of  means. 
Cease  in  your  ignorance  to  receive  such  great  deeds 
with  abusive  language.  There  was  nothing  magical 
in  Christ.  He  was  God  on  high,  sent  by  the  Ruler 
of  all  things  as  the  Saviour  God.  But  you  do  not 
believe  these  things.  Yet  eye-witnesses  believed 
them,  and  transmitted  their  belief.  If  the  record  is 
false,  how  is  it  the  belief  has  spread  ?  How  is  it  that 
nations  dwelling  widely  apart  unite  in  one  conclusion  ? 
They  have  been  prevailed  upon  (you  say)  by  vain 
hopes  and  mere  assertions  to  run  voluntarily  the  risks 
of  death.  Nay,  was  it  not  because  they  had  seen 
these  things  ?  Was  it  not  because  the  force  of  truth 
had  overcome  them,  that  they  devoted  themselves  to 
God,  and  reckoned  it  but  a  small  sacrifice  to  surrender 
their  bodies  to  you  ? 


I  I  2 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


Thus  conclusively,  by  a  comparison  of  the  means 
used,  results  achieved,  universality  of  success,  trans¬ 
mission  of  the  power,  and  the  enthusiastic  and 
practical  belief  which  they  inspired,  does  Arnobius 
prove  the  superiority  of  the  miracles  of  Christ. 

When  the  Apologists  are  comparing  the  religion 
of  Christ  with  the  religion  of  the  gods,  they  have 
no  more  legitimate  ground  for  boasting  than  the 
moral  results  the  profession  of  Christianity  pro¬ 
duced.  Over  and  over  again  they  appeal  to  the 
purity  of  Christian  lives  as  a  proof  of  the  truth  of 
the  Christian  faith.  The  close  connection,  it  must 
be  remembered,  between  morality  and  religion,  which 
seems  to  us  so  obvious,  was  not  obvious  to  the 
heathen  mind.  On  the  contrary,  gross  immoralities 
were  connected  with  the  worship  of  the  gods  ;  and  the 
rule  of  faith  was  quite  dissevered  from  the  rule  of 
life.  Lactantius,  the  latest  Apologist,  brings  home 
most  clearly  this  fact.  “  The  worship  of  God/’  he 
says,  “  of  all  things  requires  the  greatest  devotedness 
and  fidelity.  How  can  God  love  the  worshipper,  if 
He  Himself  is  not  loved  by  him?  How  can  He 
grant  the  petitioner  his  request  if  he  draw  nigh  with¬ 
out  sincerity  or  reverence?  You  heathen,”  he  says, 
“  present  your  gods  with  nothing  from  within,  no 
uprightness  of  mind,  no  reverence  or  fear.  When 
your  worthless  sacrifices  are  completed,  you  leave  your 
religion  altogether  in  the  temple  where  you  found  it. 
You  took  no  religion  there,  and  you  take  none 
away.  So  your  religious  observances  are  not  able  to 
make  men  good,  or  to  be  permanent  in  themselves. 
Men  are  easily  led  away  from  them,  because  they 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  113 

teach  nothing  as  to  conduct,  or  as  to  wisdom,  or  as  to 
faith.  For  what  is  the  religion  of  the  gods  ?  What 
is  its  power?  What  is  its  discipline?  What  its 
origin  ?  What  its  principles  ?  What  its  foundation  ? 
What  its  substance  ?  What  its  tendency  ?  What  its 
hope  ?  There  is  nothing  in  it  that  cannot  be  learned 
by  rule  of  thumb.  On  the  other  hand,  our  religion 
is  firm,  and  solid,  and  unchangeable,  because  it  has 
its  existence  in  the  soul  of  the  worshipper,  because  it 
has  the  mind  of  man  itself  for  a  sacrifice.  In  the 
heathen  religion  nothing  is  required  but  the  blood  of 
animals,  and  the  smoke  of  incense,  and  the  senseless 
pouring  out  of  libations.  In  ours  is  required  a  good 
mind,  a  pure  breast,  an  innocent  life.  The  heathen 
rites  are  frequented  by  harlots,  gladiators,  robbers, 
thieves,  and  sorcerers,  who  pray  for  nothing  else  but 
that  they  may  commit  crimes  with  impunity.  But  in 
our  religion  there  is  no  place  even  for  a  slight  and 
ordinary  offence;  and  if  any  one  shall  come  to  a 
sacrifice  without  a  sound  conscience,  he  hears  what 
threats  God  denounces  against  him ;  that  God,  I  say, 
who  sees  the  secret  places  of  the  heart,  who  is  always 
hostile  to  sin,  who  requires  justice,  who  demands  fide¬ 
lity.  What  place  is  there  here  for  an  evil  mind  or  for 
an  evil  prayer  ?  The  unhappy  heathen  do  not  under¬ 
stand  how  evil  it  is  to  worship  when  stained  by  sin. 
They  imagine  that  they  offer  a  pious  sacrifice  if  they 
wash  their  skin,  as  though  any  stream  could  wash 
away,  or  any  seas  purify,  the  lusts  shut  up  within  the 
breast.  How  much  better  it  would  be  to  cleanse  the 
mind  defiled  by  evil  desires,  and  to  drive  away  all 

1 


If 4  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

vices  by  the  one  laver  of  virtue  and  faith.  He  who 
shall  do  this,  although  he  have  a  body  defiled  with 
sin,  is  sufficiently  pure.” 

It  was  of  course  the  fact  that  worship  was  not 
a  mere  ritual  observance,  but  the  offering  up  of 
the  whole  man,  body,  soul,  and  spirit,  to  his  God, 
that  made  Christians  so  determined  in  their  refusal 
to  join  in  any  of  the  idolatrous  ceremonies.  The 
heathen  were  utterly  unable  to  understand  their 
obstinacy,  as  the  records  of  all  the  persecutions 
show.  It  seemed  to  them  utter  folly  to  choose  “  to 
be  tortured  and  slain  rather  than  to  take  incense 
in  three  fingers  and  throw  it  upon  the  hearth”1 
“  They  do  not  know,”  says  Lactantius,  “  how  great 
an  act  of  impiety  it  is  to  adore  any  other  object  than 
God,  who  made  heaven  and  earth,  who  fashioned  the 
human  race,  who  breathed  into  them  the  breath  of 
life,  and  gave  them  light.  If  he  is  accounted  the 
most  worthless  of  slaves  who  runs  away  and  deserts 
his  master,  and  if  he  is  judged  most  deserving  of 
stripes,  and  chains,  and  a  prison,  and  the  cross,  and 
all  evil ;  if  a  son  likewise  is  thought  abandoned,  and 
impious,  and  worthy  of  being  disinherited,  who  deserts 
his  father,  how  much  more  does  he  who  forsakes 
God,  in  whom  the  two  names  entitled  to  equal  reve¬ 
rence  of  Lord  and  Father  alike  meet !  ” 

Animated  with  this  intense  devotion  to  their  God, 
the  Christians  did  not  fear  what  man  could  do  unto 
them.  “  With  a  fury  more  insatiable  than  that  of  wild 
beasts,”  says  Lactantius,3  “  you  rage  against  us.  When 


1  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  v.  19. 


2  lb.  v.  11. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  115 

their  appetite  is  satisfied  they  rest  in  peace.  You, 
with  iron  teeth,  ever  rage  throughout  the  world. 
You  are  not  content  with  tearing  in  pieces  the  limbs 
of  men,  you  break  their  bones,  and  rage  over  their 
ashes,  so  that  there  may  be  no  place  for  their  burial. 
You  deny  light  to  the  living,  earth  to  the  dead. 
Death  is  too  merciful  a  thing  for  you.  Some  of  you 
contend  how  you  may  conquer  by  inflicting  exquisite 
pain,  and  you  avoid  nothing  else,  except  only  that 
the  victims  may  not  die  under  the  torture.  You 
carefully  tend  the  tortured  in  order  that  they  may  be 
capable  of  enduring  fresh  tortures.  One  of  you  was 
elated  with  joy  because  a  victim  who  had  resisted  for 
two  years  with  great  spirit  appeared  at  length  to  yield. 
Can  you  not  see  that  it  is  not  foolishness,  but  wisdom, 
which  causes  us  to  be  thus  steadfast  in  suffering  ?  It 
is  not  one  place,  or  one  sex,  or  one  age,  which 
furnishes  examples  of  endurance.  Everywhere  there 
is  the  same  patient  endurance,  the  same  contempt  of 
death.  There  must  be  some  foundation  for  that  reli¬ 
gion  which  thus  thrives  under  persecution.  Rob¬ 
bers  and  strong  men  with  you  cannot  bear  similar 
torture,  but  amongst  us  not  even  boys  and  delicate 
women  are  overcome.  You  may  boast  in  your 
Mucius,  who  laid  his  hand  upon  the  burning  hearth 
as  an  atonement  for  his  crime.  You  may  boast  of 
your  Regulus,  who  gave  himself  up  to  death  rather 
than  live  a  life  of  shame.  But  our  weak  women 
and  our  slender  boys  endure  laceration  in  the  whole 
body,  and  not  even  the  fire  can  extort  from  them  a 
groan.  They  could  escape  if  they  so  wished ;  they 
voluntarily  endure  all  because  they  put  their  trust  in 

1  2 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


1 16 


God.  And  what  is  the  result  of  all  these  persecu¬ 
tions?  Our  numbers  are  increased.1  Some  hate 
cruelty  and  are  drawn  to  us.  Some  are  pleased  with 
virtue  and  faith.  Some  suspect  that  there  must  be 
evil  in  that  worship  which  we  abjure  at  the  cost 
of  life.  Some  desire  to  know  what  that  good  is  which 
we  prefer  to  all  the  joys  of  life,  and  from  which  no 
loss  of  goods,  no  bodily  pain,  deters  us.  In  the 
midst  of  your  torments  we  tell  the  bystanders  that 
sacrifices  are  not  due  to  stocks  and  stones,  graven  by 
art  or  man’s  device,  but  to  the  living  God  who  is  in 
heaven.  Many,  when  they  hear,  believe  it  to  be  true. 
A  fresh  crowd  is  added  to  us,  because  of  the  won¬ 
derful  nature  of  the  virtue  displayed.”  2 

The  same  religion  which  made  Christians  thus  faith¬ 
ful  to  their  God,  and  thus  patient  in  enduring  persecu¬ 
tion,  also  made  them  just  and  kind  to  their  fellow-men. 
They  reckoned  themselves,  as  children  of  one  Father, 
to  be  all  equal  in  the  sight  of  God.  None  was  poor 
but  he  that  was  without  justice  ;  none  rich  but  he  who 
was  full  of  virtues.  The  excellent  were  the  good  and 
innocent ;  the  renowned,  those  who  were  most  mer¬ 
ciful.  To  the  question,  “  Are  there  not  among  you 
Christians  some  poor,  and  others  rich,  some  servants, 
and  others  masters?”  the  answer  was,  “There  is 
no  difference  between  one  man  and  another.  Why 
should  we  call  one  another  brethren,  except  we 
reckoned  ourselves  to  be  equal?  In  lowliness  of 
mind  we  are  all  on  an  equality,  the  free  with  slaves, 
and  the  rich  with  the  poor,  nevertheless  in  the  sight  of 


1  Lact.  Div.  Inst.  v.  23. 


2  lb.  v.  13. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  II7 

God  we  are  distinguished  in  respect  of  virtue.  Every 
one  is  more  exalted  according  to  his  greater  justice.” 

It  is  the  life  of  holiness  towards  God,  love  towards 

* 

their  fellow-men,  and  patience  under  injury,  to  which 
Lactantius  points  as  the  sacrifice  which  God  desires. 
“  God  does  not  desire/’  he  says,  “  the  sacrifice  of  a 
dumb  animal,  nor  of  death  and  blood,  but  of  man  and 
life.1  In  this  sacrifice  there  is  neither  need  of  sacred 
boughs,  nor  of  purifications,  nor  of  sods  of  turf,  which 
things  are  plainly  most  vain,  but  of  those  things  which 
are  put  forth  from  the  innermost  breast.  Therefore 
on  the  altar  of  God,  which  is  truly  great,  and  which 
is  placed  in  the  heart  of  man,  and  cannot  be  defiled 
with  blood,  there  are  placed  righteousness,  patience, 
faith,  innocence,  chastity,  and  abstinence.  Spiritual 
gifts  must  be  offered  to  God,  who  is  a  Spirit.  His 
offering  is  innocency  of  soul,  His  sacrifice  praise  and 
a  hymn.  The  worship  of  God  consists  of  one  thing, — 
not  to  be  wicked.” 

But  perhaps  it  will  be  said,  that  it  is  impossible,  if 
the  Christians  had  been  so  pure  and  lovely  in  cha¬ 
racter,  they  would  have  been  so  intensely  hated. 
And  yet  our  Lord  is  a  convincing  proof  to  the  con¬ 
trary.  We  know  also  that  “  he  that  doeth  evil  hateth 
the  light,  neither  cometh  to  the  light,  lest  his  deeds 
should  be  reproved.”  Wicked  men  search  diligently 
for  bad  motives  to  good  actions.  That  was  the  case 
with  many  heathen  in  the  first  three  centuries.  They 
tried  to  account  for  the  Christians’  lives  and  deaths, 
and  they  came  to  the  conclusion  that  a  senseless 


1  lb.  vi*.  24. 


Il8  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

enthusiasm  and  wicked  superstition  animated  them.1 
When  they  had  settled  this  to  their  own  satisfaction, 
they  gave  them  no  reverence  for  their  virtues,  and 
despised  them  for  their  fanaticism.  The  objection 
may  also  be  raised  that  this  description  of  Christian 
lives  and  deaths  comes  from  those  who  were  Christian 
themselves,  and  that  more  impartial  witnesses  are 
needed.  It  is  certainly  important  for  us  to  know 
what  the  heathen  of  the  first  three  centuries  thought 
of  the  Christians,  and  so  we  shall  give  two  descrip¬ 
tions  of  them  from  heathen  sources.  They  are  both 
made  by  philosophers,  and  neither  of  them  appears  to 
have  been  a  man  of  moral  worth. 

The  first  description  is  that  given  by  Lucian.  It 
is  contained  in  his  account  of  the  death  of  a  certain 
Peregrinus,  who  was  perhaps  a  real,  perhaps  only  a 
fictitious,  character.  This  Peregrinus  was  a  traveller 
from  place  to  place,  and  a  wanderer  from  one  sect  of 
philosophy  to  another.  He  was  obliged  to  leave  his 
native  country  because  of  his  crimes ;  and  in  the 
course  of  his  travels  he  learned  in  Palestine  the  won¬ 
derful  doctrine  of  the  Christians.  In  a  short  time 
they  were  but  children  to  him ;  he  held  all  their  offices 
— prophet,  high  priest,  and  ruler  of  a  synagogue.  He 
wrote  some  books  for  them  and  interpreted  others. 
They  called  him  a  god,  and  took  him  for  a  lawgiver, 
and  gave  him  the  title  of  master.  They  were  still 
worshippers  of  the  great  man  who  was  crucified  in 
Palestine — the  founder  of  their  religion  ;  and  for  this 
reason  Peregrinus  was  put  in  prison.  He  turned  his 


1  Pliny;  Lucian,  de  Morte  Peregrini ;  Octavius,  c.  1 1. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  119 

imprisonment  to  good  account ;  the  Christians  were 
much  grieved  at  it,  and  tried  to  procure  his  liberty  in 
all  ways.  Not  being  able  to  effect  that,  they  did  him 
all  sorts  of  kindnesses ;  and  these,  not  casually,  but 
with  the  greatest  care.  Early  in  the  morning  old 
women  and  little  children  would  be  at  the  prison 
gates.  The  chief  men  would  spend  the  night  with 
him ;  they  had  a  supper  together,  and  the  sacred 
books  were  read.  Even  from  Asia  some  Christians 
came  commissioned  to  relieve,  encourage,  and  com¬ 
fort  him.  It  is  incredible  what  expedients  they  use 
when  any  of  their  friends  are  known  to  be  in  trouble. 
They  spare  nothing  on  such  occasions ;  and  so 
Peregrinus’s  chain  brought  him  in  a  good  sum  ot 
money.  These  miserable  men  have  no  doubt  they 
are  immortal ;  and  they  despise  death,  and  surrender 
themselves  to  suffering.  Their  first  lawgiver  has 
taught  them  that,  when  they  have  forsaken  the  gods 
of  the  Greeks,  and  worship  Him,  and  engage  to  live 
according  to  His  law,  they  are  all  brethren.  They 
despise  the  things  of  the  world,  and  regard  them  as 
common,  and  trust  one  another  without  security.  Any 
subtle  fellow  can  impose  upon  them, — so  simple  are 
they.  Peregrinus  was  ultimately  liberated  from  prison; 
he  was  provided  with  money  for  his  travelling  ex¬ 
penses,  and  he  lived  in  great  plenty.  So  it  went  on 
for  some  time.  At  last  he  separated  from  them ;  he 
had  given  them  offence,  as  Lucian  supposes,  by  eating 
some  forbidden  food.  Remembering  what  Lucian 
was, — a  scoffer  at  all  religions  and  a  licentious  wit, — • 
is  it  not  matter  of  pride  that  he  has  nothing  worse  to 
say  of  us  than  this  ?  Have  we  not  a  most  beautiful 


120 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


picture  of  faith,  hope,  and  love  shining  forth  in 
Christian  life?  And  may  we  not  triumph  in  the 
thought  that  the  subtle,  worthless  philosopher,  reve¬ 
renced  as  a  god  forsooth,  and  ministered  to  with  such 
undeserved  kindness,  was  found  out  in  the  end  by 
the  simple  people  whom  he  had  deceived  ? 

And  now  for  another  picture  of  Christians  painted 
by  a  heathen  :  this  we  shall  find  to  be  of  quite  a  dif¬ 
ferent  character.  It  is  painted  by  the  philosopher 
Celsus,  and  it  is  to  be  found  in  his  own  words  in 
Origen’s  answer  to  him.1 

He  compares  Jews  and  Christians  together  “to  a 
flight  of  bats,  or  a  swarm  of  ants  issuing  out  of  their 
nest,  or  to  frogs  holding  council  in  a  marsh,  or  to 
worms  crawling  together  in  the  corner  of  a  dunghill, 
and  quarrelling  with  one  another  as  to  which  of  them 
are  the  greater  sinners,  and  asserting  that  God  shows 
and  announces  to  us  all  things  beforehand ;  and  that, 
abandoning  the  whole  world,  and  the  regions  of 
heaven,  and  this  great  earth,  He  becomes  a  citizen 
among  us  alone ;  and  to  us  alone  makes  His  intima¬ 
tions,  and  does  not  cease  sending  and  inquiring  in 
what  way  we  may  be  associated  with  Him  for  ever.”2 
“  It  is  only  foolish  and  low  individuals,  and  persons 
devoid  of  perception,  and  slaves,  and  women,  and 
children,  of  whom  the  teachers  of  the  Divine  Word 
wish  to  make  converts.”3  They  have  laid  down  as  a 
rule,  “  Let  no  one  come  to  us  who  has  been  instructed, 
or  who  is  wise  or  prudent  (for  such  qualifications  are 
deemed  evil  by  us) ;  but  if  there  be  any  ignorant,  or 


1  Origen  c.  Celsum,  iv.  23. 


2  lb.  iii.  49. 


3  lb.  iii.  44 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY. 


I  2  I 


unintelligent,  or  uninstructed,  or  foolish  persons,  let 
them  come  with  confidence.”  Thus  “they  manifestly 
show  that  they  desire  and  are  able  to  gain  over  only 
the  silly,  and  the  mean,  and  the  stupid,  with  women 
and  children.”  Others  invite  to  participation  in  their- 
mysteries  those  of  clean  hands  and  a  pure  tongue ; 
but  the  Christians  say,  “  Every  one  who  is  a  sinner, 
who  is  devoid  of  understanding,  who  is  a  child,  and, 
to  speak  generally,  whoever  is  unfortunate,  him  will 
the  kingdom  of  God  receive.”  “  What  others  would 
a  man  invite  if  he  were  issuing  a  proclamation  for  an 
assembly  of  robbers?”1  They  are  like  “  the  jugglers 
who  gather  crowds  around  them  in  the  market-places, 
but  who  never  dare  to  approach  an  assembly  of  wise 
men,  or  dare  to  exhibit  their  arts  among  them.” 2 
“  They  act  insolently  towards  God,  in  order  to  lead  on 
wicked  men  by  empty  hopes,  and  to  persuade  them 
to  despise  better  things.3  They  are  a  set  of  people 
associated  together  contrary  to  law.4  Their  religion 
is  barbarous  in  origin  and  secret  in  practice.5  Their 
system  of  morals  is  not  new,  and  their  miracles  are 
worked  in  the  names  of  certain  demons,  and  by  the 
use  of  incantations.6  Like  the  devil-worshippers, 
they  take  advantage  of  the  ignorance  of  those  who 
are  easily  deceived.  They  do  not  wish  either  to 
give  or  receive  a  reason  for  their  belief,  but  keep 
repeating,  ‘  Do  not  examine,  but  believe.’  ‘  Your 
faith  will  save  you.’  1  The  wisdom  of  this  life  is  bad, 
and  foolishness  is  a  good  thing.’ 7  At  first,  being  few 
in  number,  they  held  the  same  opinions,  but  when 

1  Origen  c.  Celsum,  iii.  59.  2  lb.  iii.  50.  3  lb.  iii.  78. 

4  lb.  i.  1.  5  lb.  i.  2.  6  lb.  i.  4.  7  lb.  i.  9. 


122  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

they  grew  to  be  a  great  multitude,  they  were  divided 
and  separated,  each  wishing  to  have  his  own  party.1 
They  differ  from  one  another  widely,  and  assail  one 
another  in  their  disputes  with  the  most  shameful 
language,  and  yet  they  say,  ‘  The  world  is  crucified 
unto  me  and  I  unto  the  world.’3  If  all  were  like 
them,  kings  would  be  left  in  utter  solitude  and 
desertion,  and  the  affairs  of  the  earth  would  fall  into 
the  hands  of  the  wildest  and  most  lawless  barbarians  ; 
and  then  there  would  no  longer  remain  among  men 
any  of  the  glory  of  their  religion,  or  of  the  true 
wisdom.3  If  they  refuse  to  render  due  service  to 
the  gods,  and  to  respect  those  who  are  set  over  this 
service,  let  them  not  come  to  manhood,  or  marry 
wives,  or  have  children,  or,  indeed,  take  any  share  in 
the  affairs  of  life ;  but  let  them  depart  hence  with  all 
speed  and  leave  no  posterity  behind  them,  that  such  a 
race  may  become  extinct  from  the  face  of  the  earth.”  4 
Such  is  Celsus’s  description,  or  rather  caricature  of 
Christians  and  Christianity.  There  is  very  little  in 
it  to  trouble  us.  It  is  sad,  indeed,  to  see  the  divi¬ 
sions  of  Christians  already  attracting  the  attention  of 
heathen.  Perhaps,  too,  there  are  indications  that  the 
teachers  of  the  gospel  were  not  always  careful  enough 
to  show  the  reasonableness  of  their  faith ;  and  that  the 
believers  of  the  gospel  sometimes  neglected  their  duties 
as  citizens  in  the  State.  But  most  of  the  reproaches 
cast  by  Celsus  are  our  glory.  We  rejoice  to  hear 
that  the  spiritually  sick  came  to  Christ,  for  in  their 
healing  His  power  was  magnified.  We  rejoice  to 

2  lb.  v.  64. 

4  lb.  viii.  55. 


1  Origen  c.  Celsum,  iii.  10. 
3  lb.  viii.  68. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  1 23 

hear  that  the  Christian  religion  attracted  all  kinds  of 
men.  We  rejoice  to  see  that  the  Christians  reckoned 
all  else  as  dross  for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge 
of  Christ  Jesus  their  Lord.  Celsus,  it  is  plain,  saw 
no  beauty  in  the  Christian  character  or  in  the 
Christian  religion.  That  need  not  trouble  us,  for 
he  saw  no  beauty  in  Christ  our  Lord.  “  If  they  have 
called  the  Master  of  the  house  Beelzebub,  how  much 
more  shall  they  call  them  of  His  household.”1  Celsus 
can  see  no  beauty  or  dignity  in  the  Incarnation.2  In 
Christ’s  deeds  there  was  nothing  truly  great  or  worthy 
of  a  God.3  His  sufferings  were  only  a  proof  of  His 
weakness.  His  denial  and  betrayal  by  His  own 
followers,  and  His  punishment  as  a  malefactor,  were 
an  utter  refutation  of  His  claims.4  He  does  not  even 
allow  that  Christ  was  a  virtuous  man.5  He  describes 
Him  as  “  gathering  round  Himself  ten  or  eleven  per¬ 
sons  of  notorious  character,  the  very  wickedest  of 
tax-gatherers  and  sailors,  fleeing  in  company  with 
them  from  place  to  place,  and  obtaining  His  living  in 
a  shameful  and  importunate  manner.”  He  says  that 
the  Christians  set  up  “  as  a  God  one  who  ended  a 
most  infamous  life  by  a  most  miserable  death.”6  If 
he  could  thus  misrepresent  and  misconceive  Christ, 
what  wonder  is  it  if  he  slanders  the  Christian  faith 
and  Christian  men.  Still  his  misrepresentations  have 
a  value  for  us,  for  they  show  us  how  Christianity  and 
Christians  were  regarded  by  some  at  least  of  their 


2  Origen  c.  Celsum,  i.  28,  iv.  23. 

4  lb.  ii.  9,  12,  20. 
6  lb.  vii.  53. 


1  Matt.  x.  25. 

3  lb.  ii.  30,  31,  33. 
6  lb.  i.  62. 


124 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


heathen  contemporaries  ;  and  we  are  better  able  to 
realize  the  nature  of  the  opposition  against  which  the 
Apologists  had  to  contend. 

We  now  proceed  to  the  last  point  in  the  Apologetic 
description  of  Christianity  on  which  we  shall  touch ; 
viz.  the  Christian  Worship.  It  will  be  remembered 
that  the  heathen  viewed  with  the  greatest  suspicion 
the  nocturnal  assemblies  of  the  Christians.  They 
were  thought  to  be  scenes  of  gross  immorality,  and 
the  meeting-places  of  conspirators  against  the  rulers 
in  the  State.  Two  of  the  Apologists,  Justin  and 
Tertullian,  endeavour  to  remove  these  suspicions  by 
describing  them  as  they  really  were.  Justin’s  account 
is  as  follows.1  Those  who  are  persuaded  and  believe 
that  what  we  teach  and  say  is  true,  and  undertake  to 
live  accordingly,  are  taught  to  beseech  God  with 
fasting  and  prayer ;  and  we  pray  and  fast  along  with 
them.  Then  they  are  brought  by  us  where  there  is 
water,  and  are  regenerated  by  the  washing  of  water,  in 
the  name  of  God  the  Father  and  Lord  of  the  Universe, 
and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  For  Christ  also  said,  ‘  Except  ye  be  born 
again,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.’ 
This  washing  is  called  illumination,  because  they  who 
learn  these  things  are  illuminated  in  their  under¬ 
standings.  The  baptized  person  is  then  brought  into 
the  assembly  of  our  brethren,2  in  order  that  we  may 
offer  hearty  prayers  in  common  for  ourselves  and  the 
newly  baptized,  and  all  others  in  every  place,  that  we 
may  be  counted  worthy,  now  that  we  have  learned 


1  Just.  Apol.  i.  6j. 


2  lb.  i.  6 5. 


CHRISTIANS  AND  CHRISTIANITY.  1 25 

the  truth,  to  be  found  by  our  works  also  good  citizens 
and  keepers  of  the  commandments,  so  that  we  may 
be  saved  with  an  everlasting  salvation.  Having  ended 
the  prayers,  we  salute  one  another  with  a  kiss.  Then 
to  the  President  bread  and  a  cup  of  wine  mixed  with 
water  are  brought.  He  takes  them,  and  gives  praise 
and  glory  to  the  Father  through  the  name  of  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  offers  thanks  for  our  being 
counted  worthy  to  receive  these  things  at  his  hands. 
When  he  has  concluded,  all  present  say,  Amen.  Then 
the  deacons  distribute  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine 
mixed  with  water,  and  carry  away  portions  to  the  absent.1 
This  food  is  called  Eucharist,  and  is  only  for  those 
who  believe  and  are  baptized,  and  are  living  a 
Christian  life.  Not  as  common  bread  and  wine  do 
?e  receive  it,  but  as  the  flesh  and  blood  of  the  Incar¬ 
nate  Jesus,  and  in  accordance  with  His  command.2 
We  continually  remind  one  another  of  these  things. 
And  on  Sunday  we  gather  together,  and  the  memoirs 
of  the  Apostles  and  the  writings  of  the  prophets  are 
read,  and  afterwards  the  President  instructs  and  ex¬ 
horts.  Prayers,  thanksgivings,  and  the  Communion 
follow.  Every  one  gives  alms  according  to  his  own 
will.  The  President  distributes  the  money  collected 
amongst  the  orphans  and  widows,  the  sick  and  the 
needy,  the  prisoners  and  the  strangers. 

Tertullian  does  not  add  much  to  this  account.3 
He  is  endeavouring  to  show  that  the  assemblies  of 
the  Christians  are  in  no  sense  factious  or  treasonable. 
So  he  tells  the  heathen  the  prayers  were  made  with 


1  Just.  Apol.  i.  66. 


2  lb.  i.  67. 


3  Apol.  c.  39. 


126 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


united  force  for  the  Emperor  and  all  in  authority. 
Besides  this,  he  tells  us  the  Sacred  Scriptures  were 
read,  exhortations  made,  rebukes  and  sacred  censures 
administered.  The  offertory  in  his  time  was  monthly. 
It  was  quite  voluntary.  There  was  no  compulsion 
whatsoever.  There  was  no  buying  or  selling  of  any 
sort  in  the  things  of  God.  The  money  was  used,  not 
for  feasting,  but  for  the  burial  of  the  poor,  the  edu¬ 
cation  of  orphan  children,  the  support  of  the  old,  and 
the  assistance  of  those  suffering  for  the  truth’s  sake. 
The  Christian  feast  (the  Agape)  permitted  no  vileness 
or  immodesty.  It  began  and  ended  with  prayer. 
There  was  no  such  thing  as  immoderate  eating  and 
drinking.  When  the  cravings  of  hunger  were  satis¬ 
fied,  hymns  were  sung  by  each  in  turn  to  God.  Such 
a  meeting,  Tertullian  thinks,  ought  not  to  be  called  a 
faction,  but  a  Curia,  a  sacred  meeting. 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


1  2  7 


CHAPTER  VIJ 

THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS 

As  we  have  already  observed,  the  Christian  Apolo¬ 
gists  of  the  second  century  wrote  in  Greek,  those  of 
the  third  century  in  Latin.1  This  difference  of  lan¬ 
guage  and  of  time  implies,  of  course,  other  differences 
also.  The  Greek  Apologists  spoke  as  Greeks ;  the 
Latin  Apologists,  though  not  Italians  but  Africans, 
spoke  as  citizens  of  the  Roman  empire.  By  the 
Greek  Apologist  the  world  is  divided  into  two  classes, 
Greeks  and  Barbarians.  It  is  the  Greek  mythology 
which  is  exposed,  the  Greek  philosophy  which  is 
refuted,  the  Greek  writings  which  are  compared  with 
the  Hebrew  and  Christian.  But  when  we  get  to  the 
Latin  Apologists,  the  Romans  everywhere  appear  as 
masters  of  the  world.  Roman  history  is  appealed  to, 
and  Roman  authors  quoted.  Moreover,  Christianity 
was  scarcely  known  to  the  authorities  of  the  Empire 
when  the  first  Apologists  wrote.  The  Emperor  was  a 
Christian  (so  to  speak)  by  conviction,  though  not  by 
baptism,  before  the  last.  Many  mistakes  had  been 
rectified  in  the  mean  time.  No  one  thought  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century  that  the  Christians 
were  monsters  of  immorality.  In  the  second  century 

1  There  is  only  one  exception — Origen — to  this  rule. 


128 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


this  was  the  popular  belief.  On  the  other  hand,  no 
one  imagined  at  first  that  the  Christians  would  ever 
be  able  to  accomplish  their  purpose  of  supplanting  all 
the  religions  of  the  gods.  They  were  considered  by 
the  authorities  at  that  time  to  be  a  troublesome  but 
not  a  dangerous  people.  In  the  third  century  the 
State  found  out  they  were  far  too  powerful  to  be 
despised  and  ignored,  and  that  there  really  was  a 
probability  that  they  might  succeed  in  their  efforts  to 
subvert  the  State  religion.  The  general  feeling  was, 
that,  when  the  State  religion  fell,  the  State  would  fall 
too,  so  closely  were  the  two  things  connected  together. 
So  the  political  charge  took  a  prominent  place.  Of 
course  the  Apologists  recognized  this  altered  condition 
of  things,  and  suited  their  defence  to  the  attack. 
The  charge  of  immorality  appears  in  all  the  Greek 
Apologists  except  Clement  of  Alexandria,  but  only  in 
two  of  the  Latin,  and  those  the  earliest  in  date.1  In 
the  Greek  Apologists,  the  political  charges  are  very 
little  touched  upon ;  in  the  Latin,  they  are  reckoned 
to  be  worthy  of  the  chief  attention.  In  the  Greek 
Apologists,  the  charge  of  atheism  is  refuted  ;  in  the 
Latin,  the  charge  of  forsaking  the  worship  of  the  gods. 

And,  besides  this,  the  characteristics  of  the  litera¬ 
ture  of  Greece  and  Rome  are  to  be  discerned  in  either 
class.  “  On  the  one  side  there  is  universality,  free¬ 
dom,  large  sympathy,  deep  feeling ;  on  the  other, 
there  is  individuality,  system,  order,  logic.  The 
tendency  of  one  mind  is  towards  truth  ;  of  the  other, 
towards  law.”  2 

1  Tertullian,  Minucius  Felix. 

2  Quoted  from  Westcott’s  ‘Canon,’  c.  ii.  p.  59* 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


I2Q 


Or,  quoting  the  same  author,  “  The  Greek  Apolo¬ 
gists  show  in  what  way  Christianity  was  the  satisfac¬ 
tion  of  all  the  deepest  wants  of  humanity,  the  sum  of 
all  knowledge  ;  it  was  reserved  for  the  Latin  Apolo¬ 
gists  to  apprehend  its  independent  claims,  and  estab¬ 
lish  its  right  to  supplant,  as  well  as  to  fulfil,  what  was 
partial  and  vague  in  earlier  systems.' ” 1  This  last 
remark  cannot  be  better  illustrated  than  by  comparing 
the  relations  of  Justin  and  Tertullian  with  the  heathen 
philosophy.  Attention  has  been  already  drawn  to 
this  point  in  Chapter  V.  Justin  reckons  the  philo¬ 
sophers,  or  at  least  some  of  them,  to  be  Christians 
before  Christ.  Tertullian  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  teaching  of  the  poets  and  philosophers.2 
He  is  willing  to  let  it  be  granted  that  there  is  nothing 
in  heathen  writers  which  a  Christian  approves. 

We  proceed  now  to  consider  the  separate  u  Apo¬ 
logies, and  their  writers-  Sometimes  we  shall  give 
abstracts  of,  or  striking  passages  in,  the  writings, 
sometimes  incidents  in  the  lives  and  deaths  of  the 
writers. 


JUSTIN  MARTYR.  IIO-165  A.D.  CIRCA. 

The  earliest  extant  “  Apologies  ”  are  those  of 
Justin.  He  was  born  early  in  the  2nd  century, 
and  suffered  martyrdom  during  the  reign  of  Marcus 
Aurelius,  a.d.  165.  His  life  gives  us  valuable 
information  on  the  relations  of  Christianity  with 

1  Westcott’s  ‘  Canon,’  c.  ii.  p.  56. 

2  De  Testim.  Animse,’  c.  i. 

K 


150  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

the  philosophers  and  the  Roman  State.  He  himself 
studied  several  philosophical  systems  before  his  con¬ 
version,  and  after  it,  in  the  philosopher’s  dress,  he 
preached  the  word  of  God.1  The  account  which  he 
gives  us  of  his  studies  in  philosophy,  and  his  subse¬ 
quent  conversion,  is  very  interesting  and  instructive. 
To  be  led  and  to  be  approved  by  God,  seems  to  have 
been  the  object  of  all  his  studies,  and,  knowing  no 
better  guide,  he  chose  philosophy.  It  was  the  duty, 
he  thought,  of  philosophy  to  investigate  the  Deity,  and 
with  this  notion  he  tried  the  different  schools  in  turn.3 
First  he  put  himself  under  the  instruction  of  a  Stoic.3 
When  he  had  spent  a  considerable  time  with  him,  he 
was  disappointed  at  finding  that  he  had  gained  no 
certain  knowledge  of  God.  His  master  told  him  that 
he  himself  knew  nothing  of  the  subject,  and  that 
indeed  such  knowledge  was  unnecessary.  Leaving 
him  in  consequence,  Justin  went  to  a  Peripatetic,  a 
man  who  was  a  shrewd  teacher  in  his  own  estimation. 
He,  after  a  few  days,  asked  for  a  fee,  that  their 
intercourse  might  not  be  without  profit.  This  very 
unphilosophic  request  disgusted  Justin,  and  he  at 
once  sought  for  another  teacher.  Still  eager,  he  went 
to  a  Pythagorean,  a  very  celebrated  man,  who  prided 
himself  greatly  on  his  wisdom.  But  when  Justin 
applied  for  admission  to  the  number  of  his  hearers 
and  disciples,  he  was  asked,  “Are  you  acquainted 
with  music,  astronomy,  and  geometry  ?  Do  you  ex¬ 
pect  to  comprehend  those  things  which  conduce  to 
a*  happy  life,  without  being  first  informed  on  those 

1  Eus.  Hist.  Ecc.  iv.  11.  2  Dialogue,  c.  1. 

3  lb.  c.  2. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS.  131 

points,  which  wean  the  soul  from  objects  of  sense  to 
the  contemplation  of  intellectual  objects,  so  that  it 
may  be  able  to  discern  the  things  which  are  essen¬ 
tially  honourable  and  good  ?  ”  Dismissal  followed  a 
confession  of  ignorance,  and  Justin  was  much  cast 
down,  for  he  had  a  high  opinion  of  this  teacher,  and 
thought  it  would  be  far  too  tedious  a  business  to 
acquire  a  knowledge  of  these  necessary  preliminaries. 
Lastly,  he  tried  a  Platonist  sage.  With  him  he  im¬ 
proved  and  made  rapid  advance  daily,  and  the  Platonic 
conception  of  immaterial  things  captivated  him,  and 
its  theory  of  ideas  furnished  his  mind  with  wings, 
so  that  in  a  little  time  he  supposed  that  he  had  be¬ 
come  wise,  and,  such  was  his  folly,  hoped  shortly  to 
see  God— the  end  of  Plato’s  philosophy.  Whilst 
thus  disposed,  wishing  to  be  quiet  and  alone,  he  was 
one  day  walking  in  a  field  by  the  seaside ;  an  old  man 
by  no  means  contemptible  in  appearance,  but  of 
venerable  and  meek  manners,  followed  him  at  a  little 
distance.  The  following  conversation  followed  : — 
Old  Man.  Why  are  you  here  ? 

Justin.  I  delight  in  such  walks,  because  my  atten¬ 
tion  is  not  distracted;  such  places  are  most  fit  for 
the  study  of  philology. 

O.  M.  Are  you,  then,  a  philologian  (i.e.  a  lover  of' 
words),  but  no  lover  of  deeds  or  of  truth  ? 

J.  What  greater  work  could  one  accomplish  than 
to  show  the  reason  which  governs  all;  and  having 
laid  hold  of  it,  and  being  supported  by  it,  to  look 
down  on  the  errors  of  others.1  Without  philosophy 

1  Notice  the  pride  of  the  philosopher  here. 

K  2 


132  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

and  right  reason  none  would  possess  prudence. 
Therefore  it  is  necessary  to  philosophize,  and  account 
it  the  greatest  and  most  precious  of  gains,  all  other 
things  being  reckoned  in  comparison  of  second  or 
third-rate  importance. 

O.  M.  Does  philosophy,  then,  confer  happiness  ? 

J.  Assuredly ;  and  it  alone. 

O.  M.  What,  then,  is  philosophy?  and  what  is 
happiness  ? 

J.  Philosophy  is  the  knowledge  of  that  which  is, 
and  the  discernment  of  the  truth ;  and  happiness  is 
the  reward  of  this  knowledge  of  wisdom. 

O.  M.  What  do  you  define  God  to  be  ? 

J.  That  which  is  ever  one  and  the  same,  and  the 
cause  of  being  to  all  other  creatures, — that  is  God. 

The  old  man  is  pleased  at  this  answer,  and  asks, — 
“  Is  not  knowledge  a  term  common  to  different 
things  ?  For  whoever  is  skilled  in  any  of  the  arts  is 
said  to  have  knowledge  of  it.  But  this  cannot  be  said 
equally  well  of  divine  and  human  things.  Is  there 
any  science,  for  instance,  which  gives  us  the  know¬ 
ledge  of  things  divine  and  human,  and  likewise  of  the 
divinity  and  righteousness  in  them  ?  ” 

J.  Certainly  there  is. 

O.  M  What !  can  we  know  God  and  man  in  the 
same  way  as  we  may  know  music,  arithmetic,  astro¬ 
nomy,  and  the  like  ? 

J.  By  no  means. 

O.  M.  Of  some  things  we  have  knowledge  by 
study  or  application,  of  others  by  sight.  If  any  were 
to  tell  you  that  an  animal  exists  in  India  of  a  nature 
unlike  all  others,  you  would  not  know  it  before  you 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS.  1 33 

saw  it,  or  until  you  had  heard  from  one  who  had 
seen  it  ? 

J  Certainly  not. 

Now  comes  the  crucial  question.  He  wants  to  show 
Justin  that  philosophy  cannot  give  knowledge  of  God, 
or,  according  to  J ustin’s  own  definition,  “  That  which 
is.”  Philosophers  cannot  know  that  which  they  have 
not  seen,  so  he  asks, — 

“  How,  then,  do  philosophers  know  God,  or  speak 
the  truth  about  Him,  when  they  have  neither  seen 
Him  at  any  time,  nor  heard  Him  ?  ” 

J.  God  is  not  to  be  discerned  by  the  eyes,  but  by 
the  mind,  so  Plato  teaches,  and  so  I  believe. 

Now  the  object  of  the  old  man  is  to  show  that  God 
cannot  be  discerned  by  the  unassisted  mind,  so  he 
asks, — 

“  How  is  it  that  the  mind  can  see  God  ?  ” 

J.  From  its  nature,  and  relationship  to  God. 

Then  the  old  man’s  object  is  to  show  that  it  is  not 
natural  to  man  to  comprehend  God,  i.e.,  that  man 
cannot  by  searching  find  out  God.  So  he  drives 
Justin  to  admit  that  the  comprehension  of  God  is  not 
a  characteristic  common  to  all  minds ;  some  have  it, 
and  some  have  it  not.  He  makes  him»confess  that 
the  philosophers  cannot  tell  him  what  the  soul  of  man 
really  is.  He  convinces  him  that  the  soul  has  nothing 
which  it  has  not  received,  and  at  last  induces  Justin  to 
ask,  “Whom,  then,  shall  a  man  take  as  his  master? 
or  whence  shall  he  derive  any  instruction  if  the  truth 
is  not  with  these  philosophers?”  And  now  the  old 
man  has  got  to  the  point  he  wished.  In  order  to 
attain  to  the  knowledge  of  God,  man  wants  a  Divine 


134  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

teacher.  He  cannot  see  God  with  his  eyes,  as  Justin 
allows.  He  cannot  naturally  comprehend  God  with 
his  mind,  as  he  has  been  compelled  to  admit  ; 
but  God  reveals  Himself  to  men,  and  in  this  way  : — 
“There  once  lived  men,”  the  old  man  says,  “called 
prophets,  who  were  anterior  to  any  of  those  who  are 
considered  philosophers,  both  righteous  and  beloved 
by  God.  These  spoke  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
foretold  what  would  happen  hereafter,  and  what  is 
now  taking  place.  These  alone  knew  and  taught 
the  truth,  neither  regarding  nor  fearing  any  man, 
nor  being  themselves  carried  away  by  the  love  of 
glory,  but  declaring  those  things  alone  which  they 
saw  and  heard,  when  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Their  writings  are  still  extant,  and  he  who  has  read 
them  will  derive  much  instruction  about  the  first  prin¬ 
ciples  and  the  ends  of  things,  together  with  all  those 
matters  that  a  philosopher  ought  to  know  after  he  has 
believed  them.  They  have  not  indeed  given  demon¬ 
strations  in  their  writings,  for  they,  in  fact,  as  faithful 
witnesses  of  the  truth,  are  above  all  demonstration ;  but 
the  events  which  have  happened  already,  and  those 
which  are  taking  place  even  now,  compel  you  to 
receive  their  testimony.  Even,  indeed,  for  the  miracles 
which  they  performed  are  they  worthy  of  belief,  and 
especially  since  they  glorified  God  the  Father  and 
Maker  of  all  things,  and  taught  concerning  Christ 
His  Son  who  was  sent  by  Him,  which  the  false  pro¬ 
phets,  who  were  filled  with  a  spirit  of  falsehood  and 
uncleanness,  neither  did  nor  do ;  but  these  presume 
to  perform  certain  wonders  to  astonish  mankind,  and 
set  forth  the  praises  of  lying  spirits  and  devils.  But 


THE  CREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


*35 


do  you,  above  all  things,  pray  that  the  gates  of  light 
may  be  opened  to  you ;  for  these  things  are  not  to  be 
seen  or  comprehended,  except  by  him  to  whom  God 
and  His  Christ  give  the  grace  of  understanding.” 

When  the  old  man  had  said  this  and  many  other 
things,  he  went  away,  and  Justin  never  saw  him  again. 
But  straightway  a  fire  was  kindled  in  his  soul,  and  a 
love  of  the  prophets  and  the  friends  of  Christ  pos¬ 
sessed  him  ;  and  when  he  had  considered  the  matter, 
he  found  the  Christian  philosophy  alone  safe  and 
profitable.  It  became  his  desire  and  aim  that  others 
should  become  as  he  was.  He  endeavoured  to  per¬ 
suade  others  to  give  credence  to  the  Saviour’s  words, 
to  become  acquainted  with  the  Christ  of  God,  and, 
being  initiated,  lead  a  happy  life. 

We  have  described  Justin’s  conversion  at  great 
length,  because  it  describes  so  plainly  the  difference 
between  philosophy  and  Christianity.  On  the  one 
side  there  was  human  reasoning,  on  the  other  Divine 
revelation ;  on  the  one  side  there  was  demonstration 
of  truth,  on  the  other  witnesses  to  truth ;  on  the  one 
side  there  was  nature,  on  the  other  grace. 

Probably,  Justin  would  not  have  been  thus  easily 
converted,  had  not  Christians  by  their  deaths  already 
recommended  their  doctrines  to  his  mind.  He  had 
seen  how  Christians  could  die  before  he  knew  what 
Christianity  was.  He  had  already  come  to  the  con¬ 
clusion  that  the  popular  slanders  were  utterly  false. 
“  I  myself,”  he  says,  “  when  I  was  delighting  in  the 
doctrines  of  Plato,  and  heard  the  Christians  slandered, 
and  saw  them  fearless  of  death,  and  of  all  other 
things  which  are  counted  fearful,  perceived  that  it  was 


J36  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

impossible  they  could  be  living  in  wickedness  and 
pleasure.”  He  laughed  at  the  wicked  disguise  which 
evil  spirits  had  thrown  round  the  divine  doctrines  of 
the  Christians,  and  then,  being  instructed  by  the 
old  man,  he  strove  with  all  his  strength  to  be¬ 
come  a  Christian,  and  endeavoured  in  his  turn  to 
lead  others  to  Christ.  Of  couise,  being  thus  eager  in 
the  Christian  cause,  he  ran  the  greatest  risks.  He 
was  quite  aware  of  this.  He  tells  us  that  he  ex¬ 
pected  to  be  entrapped  and  affixed  to  the  stake 
by  some  of  his  heathen  opponents.1  He  men¬ 
tions  especially  one  Crescens,  a  Cynic  philosopher, 
who  was  a  lover  of  noise  and  boasting,  a  false 
and  ignorant  accuser  of  the  brethren,  in  order  to 
please  the  multitude.  Justin  had  publicly  refuted 
him  in  argument,  and  so  incurred  his  hatred.  These 
expectations  were  fulfilled  ;  Crescens  did  bring  about 
his  martyrdom  at  Rome.2  He  was  brought  before 
the  prefect  Rusticus  along  with  others.  He  refused 
to  offer  libations  to  vain  idols.  He  confessed  he  was 
a  Christian.3  He  was  asked  scoffingly  whether  he 
supposed  that  if  he  was  scourged  and  beheaded,  he 
would  ascend  into  heaven,  He  answered  that  he 
did  not  suppose,  but  was  fully  persuaded  of  it.  All 
threats  were  in  vain.  Sentence  was  pronounced. 
“  Let  those  who  have  refused  to  do  sacrifice  to  the 
gods  and  to  yield  to  the  comand  of  the  Emperor, 
be  scourged,  and  led  away  to  suffer  the  punishment 
of  decapitation,  according  to  the  laws.”  The  holy 
martyrs  then  glorified  God,  and  “  went  out  to  the 

1  Apol.  ii.  c.  3.  2  Tatian,  quoted  by  Eusebius,  iv.  16. 

3  Martyrdom  of  Justin  and  others. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


*37 


accustomed  place.1  They  were  beheaded,  and  per¬ 
fected  their  testimony  in  the  confession  of  the  Saviour. 
Some  of  the  faithful  having  secretly  removed  their 
bodies,  laid  them  in  a  suitable  place,  the  grace  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  having  wrought  along  with  them 
to  whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever,  Amen.” 

Three  undisputed  works  of  Justin,  all  of  them  of 
an  Apologetic  character,  are  now  extant ;  namely, 
the  two  Apologies  and  the  Dialogue  with  Trypho. 
All  of  them  contain  remarkable  passages,  and  all  of 
them  are  deficient  in  order,  and  method,  and  logic. 
Much  that  is  most  valuable  to  us  seems  unsuitable 
for  the  object  for  which  it  was  written.  Of  course, 
this  latter  fault  was  a  very  natural  one  to  fall  into, 
especially  under  the  particular  circumstances.  To 
know  the  arguments  which  will  influence  men  of 
principles  wholly  diverse  from  your  own,  is  a  rare 
gift  in  every  age.  And  Justin  was  treading  on  well- 
nigh  unknown  ground.  Later  Apologists  were  able 
to  use  his  materials,  and,  in  some  measure,  to  avoid 
his  mistakes. 

Justin’s  first  Apology  was  addressed  to  the  Emperor 
Antoninus  Pius  and  his  sons,  the  Sacred  Senate,  and 
the  whole  Roman  people.  He  calls  it  a  petition  on 
behalf  of  those  of  all  nations  who  are  unjustly  hated 
and  wantonly  abused,  he  himself  being  one.  Rumour 
had  spread  certain  charges  against  the  Christians. 
He  asks  for  an  investigation.  He  appeals  to  the  piety 
and  philosophy  of  the  rulers  whom  he  addresses. 
They  are  guardians  of  justice  and  lovers  of  learning, 
and  he  demands  justice  at  their  hands.  A  mere 
1  Martyrdom  of  Justin  and  others,  c.  5. 


138  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

name  proves  nothing  one  way  or  another.  The 
name  Christian,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  an  argument  in 
favour  of  the  people  who  bear  it.  “  We  are  (by 
name)  most  excellent  people.  To  hate  what  is  ex¬ 
cellent  is  unjust.1  Granted  that  some  called  Chris¬ 
tians  have  ere  now  been  arrested  and  convicted  as 
evil-doers,2  you  must  not  allow  the  evil  deeds  of 
some  to  discredit  the  character  of  all.  Under  the 
one  name  of  philosopher  are  banded  together  many 
who  do  nothing  worthy  of  their  profession  :  many  of 
diverse  opinions  and  teachings ;  some  who  have  even 
taught  atheism.  You  discriminate  between  philoso¬ 
phers,  you  ought  to  discriminate  between  Christians. 
Remember,  to  our  credit,  that  it  is  very  easy  for  us 
to  avoid  your  persecution ;  you  condemn  us  for  our 
mere  name ;  you  acquit  us  if  we  are  willing  to  deny 
our  name.  Why  is  it  that  we  refuse  so  to  do?  It  is 
because  we  would  not  live  by  telling  a  lie.” 

The  charges  he  mentions  as  brought  against  the 
Christians  are  Atheism  and  Immorality ;  there  is  also 
a  reference  to  a  Political  charge.  In  answer  to  these 
he  remarks,  that  although  atheists  with  respect  to 
the  demon-gods  of  the  heathen,  the  Christians  have 
a  God  whom  they  serve.  Him  they  worship,  but 
not  with  sacrifices  and  libations,  for  they  have  been 
taught  that  God,  the  provider  of  all  things,  needs  no 
material  offerings  at  the  hands  of  men,  and  that  the 
service  He  accepts  is  the  imitation  of  the  excellences 

1  Chrestus  is  the  Greek  for  “excellent,”  and  Justin  here 
makes  use  of  that  fact. 

2  The  followers  of  Simon  Magus  (c.  26),  and  probably  also 
the  Gnostics  generally,  are  alluded  to  here. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


*39 


which  dwell  in  Him.  Him  they  serve,  because  they 
desire  to  live  with  Him  in  His  kingdom,  because 
they  fear  everlasting  fire.  And  as  this  system  of 
rewards  and  punishments  is  divine,  and  therefore 
perfect,  it  necessarily  has  a  much  greater  influence 
on  their  conduct  than  any  human  and  imperfect 
system.  How  can  they  lead  wicked  lives  when  they 
know  they  cannot  escape  punishment?  It  is  quite 
true  the  Christians  look  for  a  kingdom,  but  the  king¬ 
dom  is  not  human,  it  is  with  God.  If  it  were  human, 
they  would  deny  Christ  in  order  that  they  might  not 
be  slain;  for  death  would  cut  them  off  from  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  their  hopes. 

He  then  gives  the  source  of  Christian  teaching. 
Their  doctrine  has  been  taught  them  by  the  Word  of 
God,  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  born  for  this  purpose, 
and  was  crucified  under  Pontius  Pilate,  procurator  of 
Judaea  in  the  times  of  Tiberius  Coesar. 

In  forcible  language  Justin  describes  the  change 
which  this  doctrine  has  wrought  on  the  lives  of  those 
who  have  received  it.  “  Since  our  persuasion  by  the 
Word,”  he  says,  “  we  stand  aloof  from  the  demons, 
and  follow  the  only  unbegotten  God  through  His 
Son ;  we,  who  formerly  delighted  in  fornication,  now 
embrace  chastity  alone;  we,  who  formerly  used  magi¬ 
cal  arts,  dedicate  ourselves  to  the  good  and  unbe¬ 
gotten  God;  we,  who  valued  above  all  things  the 
acquisition  of  wealth  and  possessions,  now  turn  what 
we  have  into  a  common  stock,  and  communicate  to 
every  one  in  need ;  we,  who  hated  and  destroyed  one 
another,  and  would  not  even  use  the  same  hearth  or 
fire  with  the  men  of  a  different  tribe,  on  account  of 


140  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

their  different  manners,  now,  since  the  coming  of 
Christ,  live  familiarly  with  them,  and  pray  for  our 
enemies,  and  endeavour  to  persuade  those  who  hate 
us  unjustly  to  live  conformably  to  the  good  precepts 
of  Christ,  to  the  end  that  they  may  become  partakers 
with  us  of  the  same  joyful  hope  of  a  reward  from 
God.” 

Lest  Justin  should  appear  to  be  reasoning  sophis- 
tically,  he  gives  at  great  length  the  teaching  of  Christ 
on  matters  of  life  and  conduct.  He  shows  how  Christ 
taught  His  disciples  to  be  chaste  even  in  thought,  to 
love  even  their  enemies,  to  lay  up  treasure  in  heaven 
and  not  on  earth,  to  be  patient  under  injuries,  to 
swear  not  at  all.  His  system  is  such  a  practical  one, 
that  it  is  not  believing  a  certain  set  of  opinions,  but 
acting  them  out  in  the  life,  which  constitutes  a  Chris¬ 
tian.  He  taught  them  to  render  to  Caesar  the  things 
that  are  Caesar’s,  so  that  they  are  necessarily  obedient 
subjects.  All  these  precepts  the  Christians  are  duly 
carrying  out,  and  if  any  break  them,  then  they  cease, 
ipso  facto ,  to  be  Christians,  and  will  be  deservedly 
punished. 

He  then  endeavours  to  show  that  the  Christian 
doctrines  of  the  Immortality  of  the  Soul,  the  Resur¬ 
rection  of  the  Body,  and  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Deity,  are  not,  a  priori ,  incredible  to  a  heathen,  for 
his  own  mythology  contains  similar  doctrines.  The 
arguments  he  adduces  here  seem  to  be  of  a  very 
doubtful  and  fanciful  character. 

The  Analogy  of  Nature  furnishes  him  with  an 
additional  argument  in  favour  of  the  Resurrection. 
He  asks  whether  it  is  more  difficult  to  believe  that 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS.  141 

the  body  of  a  man  sown  in  the  earth  should,  in 
God’s  appointed  time,  rise  again  and  put  on  incor¬ 
ruption,  or  to  believe  that  from  a  small  drop  of  seed, 
bones,  and  sinews,  and  flesh  should  be  formed  in 
human  shape.  We  should  not  have  believed  the 
latter,  had  not  experience  convinced  us.  We  have 
no  right  to  deny  the  possibility  of  the  former,  though 
hitherto  beyond  our  experience. 

Justin  now  states  the  three  points  which  he  wishes 
to  prove. 

(1.)  That  the  Christian  doctrine  is  alone  true, 
and  that  it  is  to  be  received,  not  because  of  its 
resemblance  to  heathen  doctrine,  but  on  its  own 
authority. 

(2.)  That  Jesus  Christ  is  the  only  Son  of  God — 
being  His  Word,  and  First  Begotten,  and  Power. 

(3.)  That  the  demons  have  enabled  the  poets  and 
others  to  anticipate  the  facts  of  His  life. 

To  prove  the  first  point  (c.  24-29),  Justin  remarks 
that  the  heathen  themselves  are  at  variance  as  to  the 
proper  objects  of  worship.  Some  of  them  worship 
lifeless  objects,  some  irrational  animals ;  the  things 
which  some  esteem  gods,  others  esteem  wild  beasts. 
If  any  one  goes  back  to  their  ancient  mythology,  he 
finds  their  gods  perpetrating  crimes  too  base  for  men 
to  mention :  those  cannot  be  gods  who  are  slaves  to 
human  passions.  To  come  later  down,  the  heathen 
have  esteemed  even  magicians  worthy  of  divine 
honours.  The  practical  result  of  these  doctrines  is, 
that  they  expose  their  children,  or  rear  them  for 
shameful  uses  ;  that  immorality  and  unnatural  crimes 
are  legalized,  and  that  crimes  are  perpetrated  under 


142  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

the  title  of  religious  mysteries.  Surely,  a  religion  so 
uncertain  in  its  objects  of  worship,  whose  gods  are  so 
despicable  either  from  their  vices  or  from  their  weak¬ 
ness,  whose  votaries  lead  such  immoral  lives,  cannot 
but  be  false.  Him  whom  the  heathen  esteem  a  god, 
the  Christians  call  the  devil,  who  will  hereafter  be 
sent,  along  with  his  worshippers,  to  eternal  •  punish¬ 
ment.  This  punishment  has  been  delayed  simply 
because  of  God’s  regard  for  the  human  race.  The 
Christians,  on  the  other  hand,  live  continently;  they 
worship  a  God  who  delights  in  virtue,  who  made  the 
human  race  with  the  power  of  thought,  and  choosing 
the  truth,  and  doing  what  is  right. 

To  prove  the  second  point  (c.  30-53),  Justin  meets, 
at  the  outset,  the  objection  that  Christ  worked  His 
wonderful  works  by  magical  art,  and  thus  appeared 
to  be  the  Son  of  God.  The  Christ  of  prophecy  can 
have  been  no  magician.  The  books  which  tell  of 
Him  are  no  cunningly  devised  fables,  framed  after 
the  event;  they  were  translated  for  a  heathen  king 
hundreds  of  years  before  He  of  whom  they  spoke 
appeared  upon  earth.  They  do  not  exist  in  rare 
copies,  but  are  in  the  possession  of  all  Jews  through¬ 
out  the  world.  They  are  not  the  longings  of  one 
mind  and  one  age,  but  in  the  succession  of  genera¬ 
tions  during  5,000  years,  prophets  after  prophets 
arose.  They  are  no  ambiguous  oracles,  giving  doubt¬ 
ful  and  shadowy  information,  but  they  tell  of  his  age, 
nation,  tribe,  miraculous  conception,  place  of  birth, 
miraculous  powers,  character,  and  death,  together 
with  numerous  circumstances  of  His  life.  It  is  not 
isolated  expressions,  on  which  coincidences  might  be 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


143 


hong,  which  point  to  Him,  but  whole  chapters  to¬ 
gether.  No  man  before  Him  has  ever  realized  the 
predictions,  for  they  foreshadow  one  who  should  be 
more  than  man.  It  must  not,  however,  be  supposed 
that  “whatever  happens,  happens  by  a  fatal  necessity, 
because  it  is  foretold  as  known  beforehand.5’  The 
balancings  of  a  man  between  good  and  evil,  and  the 
very  existence  of  good  and  evil,  prove  this.  The 
same  Spirit  which  foretold  future  events  thus  taught, 
— “Behold,  before  thy  face  are  good  and  evil;  choose 
the  good.55  It  was  not  to  be  believed  that  men  who 
lived  before  the  birth  of  Christ  were  left  without 
instruction.  The  coming  Word  cast  its  light  before 
it,  and  shone  on  all  races  of  men,  as  well  on  bar¬ 
barian  as  on  Greek,  on  Socrates  as  on  Abraham. 

As  independent  evidence  of  the  fulfilment  of  pro¬ 
phecy,  Justin  adduces  the  case  of  the  Jews.  The 
desolation  of  Jerusalem  was  prophesied,  and  this 
very  day  guards  are  set,  that  no  one  may  dwell  there. 
All  prophecy  is  not  as  yet  fulfilled,  but  the  past 
fulfilments  are  an  earnest  of  the  future,  the  First 
Advent  is  an  earnest  of  the  Second.  It  was  not  to 
the  Jews  alone  that  Christ  came.  He  was  no  local 
national  deliverer,  but  one  whom  the  prophets  de¬ 
clare  will  have  more  followers  among  the  Gentiles 
than  among  the  Jews. 

To  prove  the  third  point  (c. 54-64),  Justin  brings 
forward  the  legend  of  Bacchus,  the  horse  of  Belle- 
rophon,  the  strength  of  Hercules,  the  miracles  of 
AEsculapius,  and  the  works  of  Plato,  in  which  he 
sees  manifest  plagiarisms  from  the  sacred  writers. 
One  thing,  however,  the  demons  did  not  understand, 


144  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

and  that  was  the  Crucifixion  ;  and  yet  the  form  of 
the  cross  lies  at  the  basis  of  all  things  in  the  world. 

He  traces  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  the  sail  of  a  ship, 
in  the  plough,  in  the  tools  of  diggers  and  mechanics, 
and  in  the  human  form.  “  The  human  form/’  he 
says,  “  differs  from  that  of  the  irrational  animals  in 
nothing  else  than  in  its  being  erect  and  having  the 
hands  extended,  and  having  on  the  face  extending 
from  the  forehead  what  is  called  the  nose,  through 
which  there  is  respiration  for  the  living  creature ; 
and  this  shows  no  other  form  than  that  of  the  cross.” 
The  power  of  the  cross  he  tells  the  heathen,  is  shown 
by  their  own  symbols  on  the  banners  and  trophies ; 
in  their  state  processions  they  use  it  unwittingly  as 
the  insignia  of  their  power  and  government.  With 
this  form  they  consecrate  the  images  of  their  emperors 
when  they  die.  After  these  remarks,  which  it  is 
difficult  to  take  seriously,  Justin  thinks  he  has  proved 
this  part  of  his  case  so  well,  that  he  is  blameless  if 
men  still  disbelieve. 

The  demons  were  not  satisfied  with  anticipating 
the  facts  of  the  Incarnation  ;  after  Christ’s  appear¬ 
ance  they  put  forth  men  like  Simon  Magus,  who  did 
mighty  works  by  means  of  magic,  and  deceived  many. 
It  is  they  who  cause  persecution.  It  is  they  who 
put  forward  heretics  like  Marcion,  who  denied  that 
God  is  the  creator  of  heaven  and  earth. 

As  the  Christian  assemblies  had  been  asserted  to  be 
immoral,  Justin  then  gives  a  simple  account  of  their 
meetings  for  worship  and  the  administration  of  their 
sacraments ;  and  he  concludes  by  appealing  to  the 
Emperor  to  act  as  his  father  Hadrian  had  done, 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS.  1 45 

and  to  do  this,  not  on  the  ground  of  Hadrian’s  deci¬ 
sion,  but  on  the  ground  of  justice. 

It  may  not  be  amiss  to  add  here  the  decree  of 
Hadrian  referred  to.  It  is  quoted  by  Eusebius  in 
his  ‘  Ecclesiastical  History/  and  is  undoubtedly 
genuine.  It  throws  considerable  light  on  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  the  common  people  to  the  Christians. 

Hadrians  Epistle  to  Minucius  Fun danus ,  Proconsul 

of  Asia,  circa  124. 

“  I  have  received  an  epistle  written  to  me  by  the 
most  illustrious  Serenius  Granianus,  whom  you  have 
succeeded.  I  do  not  wish  that  his  communication 
should  be  passed  over  without  examination,  lest  men 
should  be  disturbed,  and  occasion  be  given  to  in¬ 
formers  for  practising  villainy.  Accordingly  if  the 
people  of  your  province  will  so  far  sustain  this  peti¬ 
tion  of  theirs  as  to  accuse  the  Christians  in  some 
court  of  law,  they  may  pursue  this  course,  but  they 
are  not  to  proceed  by  mere  petitions  and  outcries. 
It  is  far  more  seemly,  if  any  one  should  wish  to 
make  an  accusation,  that  you  should  examine  it. 
If,  therefore,  any  one  makes  an  accusation  and 
proves  these  men  to  be  acting  contrary  to  the  laws, 
decide  the  case  according  to  the  heinousness  of  the 
offence.  But  if  any  one,  by  Hercules,  should  put 
forward  an  accusation  for  mere  calumny’s  sake,  in¬ 
vestigate  the  case  according  to  its  criminality,  and 
take  care  that  you  inflict  due  punishment.” 1 

Justin’s  Apology  is  said  to  have  elicited  an  epistle 

Eus.  Hist.  Ecc.  iv.  9. 

L 


1 


146  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

of  the  Emperor  Antoninus  Pius  to  the  Common 
Assembly  of  Asia.1  Its  authenticity  is  doubtful,  for 
the  Emperor  contrasts  disadvantageously  the  heathen 
with  the  Christians.  The  heathen  neglect  the  wor¬ 
ship  of  God,  and  persecute  those  who  do  serve  Him. 
The  Christians  are  to  be  unmolested,  unless  they 
attempt  anything  against  the  Roman  Government ; 
they  are  not  to  be  punished  simply  on  the  ground 
of  their  religion.  Whether  this  epistle  is  genuine  or 
not,  it  is  certain  Antoninus  Pius  issued  some  decrees 
in  favour  of  the  Christians.  Melitce,  in  the  fragment 
of  his  Apology  (a.d.  170)  preserved  by  Eusebius, 
distinctly  states  this.2 

Passing  over  Justin’s  second  Apology  as  not  re¬ 
quiring  separate  attention,  we  come  next  to  his 
Dialogue  with  Trypho.  It  differs  fundamentally  in 
character  fromthe  other  Apologies  ;  it  is  a  defence 
of  Christianity  against  the  Jews,  and  it  is  based  upon 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  does  not 
aim  at  proving  that  the  Christians  are  worthy  of 
toleration,  but  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  and  that 
the  Mosaic  Law  is  abrogated. 

In  the  introductory  part  of  the  work,  we3  have 
that  interesting  account  of  Justin’s  studies  previous 
to  his  becoming  a  Christian,  and  of  the  circumstances 
of  his  conversion,  already  quoted  at  length.  4  In  the 
actual  argument,  Trypho  admits  the  groundlessness 
of  the  charges  of  immorality  brought  against  the 
Christians,  and  confesses  the  wonderful  character  ot 
the  precepts  of  the  Gospel ;  so  wonderful,  indeed 

1  Eus.  H.  E.  iv.  13.  3  I-b.  iv.  26. 

3  Just.  Dial.  c.  2-8.  4  c.  10. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


147 


are  these,  that  he  suspects  no  man  can  keep  them. 
The  objections  that  he  brings  against  the  Christians1 
are,  that,  although  they  profess  to  be  so  pious,  they 
observe  no  festivals  or  sabbaths,  they  do  not  practise 
the  rite  of  circumcision,  and  the  y  rest  their  hopes  on 
a  man  who  was  crucified. 

Justin’s  argument2  in  reply  is, — that  the  Mosaic 
Law  is  now  abrogated ;  that  a  new  covenant  has 
been  made,  as  the  prophets  foretold  ;  that  righteous¬ 
ness  does  not  consist  in  observing  the  Jewish  rites, 
but  in  the  circumcision  of  the  foreskin  of  the  heart, 
the  baptism  of  the  soul,  the  fast  from  sin,  the  purging 
oneself  from  the  deeds  of  the  old  leaven.  He  con¬ 
siders3  that  the  Mosaic  laws  were  instituted  only 
because  of  the  weakness  and  wickedness  of  the  J ewish 
nation.  Circumcision  was  a  sign  of  separation  from 
the  rest  of  the  world,  that  so  God’s  punishments 
might  be  inflicted  on  the  Jews,  and  on  them  alone. 
They  were  enjoined  to  offer  sacrifices  to  God,  in 
order  that  they  might  not  offer  them  to  idols.  They 
were  commanded  to  abstain  from  certain  meats, 
lest  they  should  wax  fat  and  kick.  Sabbaths  were 
instituted,  because  of  their  unrighteousness  and  the 
unrighteousness  of  their  fathers.  That  the  Jewish 
rites  were  not  necessary  to  salvation,  is  proved  by 
the  fact,  that  they  were  not  enjoined  on  any  from 
Adam  to  Moses,  and  never  on  any  but  the  Jews 
themselves.  His  remarks  show  plainly  enough,  that 
in  his  days  no  one  had  conceived  the  notion  of 
what  is  now  called  the  Christian  sabbath.  He  speaks 
of  circumcision,  sabbaths,  and  feasts,  as  alike  enjoined, 


1  c.  10. 


c.  19-22. 


2 


C.  I  1-24. 


3 


148  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

because  of  the  hardness  of  the  hearts  of  the  Jews, 
and  as  alike  done  away  with  in  the  new  covenant. 
When  Trypho  quotes  against  him  the  well-known 
passage  in  Isaiah,  lxviii.  13,  14,  concerning  the  sab¬ 
bath,  he  replies,  that  the  observance  was  re-enjoined 
by  the  prophets  for  the  same  reason  that  it  had 
originally  been  enjoined  by  Moses. 

The  remainder  of  the  Dialogue  is  mainly  taken  up 
with  Justin’s  proofs, — 

(1.)  That  Jesus  is  the  Christ. 

(2.)  That  Christ  is  God. 

He  rests  his  arguments  entirely  upon  the  prophecies 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  is  difficult  for  any  one  with  Western  modes  of 
thought  to  estimate  the  force  with  which  Justin’s 
arguments  would  fall  upon  one  of  his  own  race  or 
time.  His  arguments  rarely  appear  complete.  There 
is  always  something  wanting  in  the  connection, — at 
least  to  a  matter-of-fact  Western  mind.  Resem¬ 
blances,  analogies,  and  direct  prophecies  seem  with 
him  to  have  an  equal  cogency.  He  sees  and  expects 
Trypho,  an  unbelieving  Jew,  to  see  in  the  two  goats 
of  the  day  of  Atonement,  the  two  Advents  of  Christ ; 
in  the  twelve  bells  of  the  high  priest,  the  twelve 
apostles ;  and  in  the  Theophanies  to  Abraham,  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Trinity.  The  wood  of  the  cross  is  clearly 
symbolized  by  the  rod  of  Moses;  the  tree  cast  into  the 
waters  of  Marah,  the  rod  which  Jacob  put  into  the 
water-troughs;  Aaron’s  rod  which  budded,  “the  rod 
and  the  staff”  of  which  David  speaks  in  the  twenty- 
third  Psalm,  and  in  the  stick  which  Elisha  cast  into  the 
Jordan,  that  the  iron  might  swim.  Leah  and  Rachel 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


149 


represented  the  Jews  and  Gentiles;  for  both  of  them, 
Christ,  typified  by  Jacob,  became  a  servant.  The 
speckled  and  many-spotted  sheep,  Jacob’s  allotted 
hire,  were  the  various  and  many-formed  races  of 
mankind  which  Christ  purchased  by  His  blood.  Leah 
was  weak-eyed,  and  the  eyes  of  the  souls  of  the  Jews 
were  excessively  weak.  Rachel  stole  Laban’s  gods, 
and  has  hid  them  to  this  day,  and  the  Christians 
have  lost  their  ancestral  gods  of  wood  and  stone. 
Justin,  in  dealing  with  the  prophecies  of  the  Old 
Testament,  seems  to  start  with  the  assumption  that 
every  sentence  may  be  severed  from  its  context,  and 
interpreted  according  to  pleasure ;  that  any  allusion 
or  coincidence  thus  obtained  to  the  life,  teaching, 
or  nature  of  Jesus,  proves  either  the  passage  to  be 
a  prophecy,  or  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ.  It  is  hardly 
to  be  wondered  at  that  he  thus  failed  in  dealing  with 
the  evidence  of  prophecy.  The  subject  was  in  itself 
exceedingly  difficult.  No  sound  rules  for  his  guidance 
had  been  laid  down  ;  he  does  not  seem  to  have 
had  any  special  qualifications  for  his  task ;  his  judg¬ 
ment  seems  to  have  been  faulty,  and  his  imagination 
excessive. 

The  death  upon  the  cross  was  the  great  stumbling- 
block  to  Trypho.  He  made  no  great  difficulty  in 
admitting  the  doctrine  of  a  suffering  Messiah,  but  he 
could  not  believe  that  He  would  be  shamefully  cruci¬ 
fied.2  It  is  impossible  to  suppose  that  his  difficulties 
would  in  any  way  be  removed  by  Justin’s  enumeration 
of  those  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  in  which  he 
thought  the  cross  was  typified,— doubtful  allusions, 

1  Just.  Dial.  c.  89.  2  c.  90. 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


*5° 

at  the  very  best,  they  could  have  no  argumentative 
force  to  an  unbeliever.1  When  confronted  by  the 
text,  “  Cursed  is  every  one  that  hangeth  on  a  tree,” 
Justin  replies  very  differently  to  some  in  the  present 
day.2  He  allows  that  Christ  was  cursed,  not,  how¬ 
ever,  by  God,  but  by  the  Jews,  who  cursed  both  Him 
and  those  that  believed  on  Him. 

As  a  defence  of  Christianity  against  the  Jews, 
Justin’s  Dialogue  with  Trypho  is  of  little  value  to  us. 
Its  chief  value  consists  in  the  view  it  gives  of  the 
principles  of  interpretation  prevalent  at  the  time, 
and  in  the  testimony  it  gives  that  the  story  of  Christ’s 
life,  then  current,  was  substantially  the  same  as  that 
contained  in  the  Gospels.  It  is  obvious  that  a  work 
like  this  has  very  little  in  common  with  the  other 
Apologies. 


TATI  AN.  CIRCA  150  A.D. 

There  is  something  melancholy  in  considering 
Tatian’s  address  to  the  Greeks ;  for  this  defender  of 
the  faith  ultimately  made  shipwreck  of  his  own,  and 
founded  an  heretical  sect.  He  rejected  marriage  as 
impure,  and  refused  the  meats  which  God  created  to 
be  received  with  thanksgiving.  His  heresy  appears  to 
have  been  similar  to  that  condemned  by  St.  Paul  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  “  Touch  not,  taste  not,  handle 
not,”  would  seem  to  have  been  one  of  his  principles. 
He  is  said  to  have  composed  a  harmony  of  the  four 
Gospels,  and  to  have  left  out  all  the  parts  that  related 
to  the  Incarnation  and  the  true  manhood  of  Christ. 

c.  91-97.  2  c.  94-96. 


1 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


Tatian  writes  as  a  barbarian  to  Greeks,  and  he 
scoffs  at  the  Greek  pride,  and  the  Greek  philosophy, 
and  the  Greek  religion.  He  had  been  a  great  pro¬ 
ficient  in  their  wisdom,  and  had  been  admitted  to 
their  mysteries.  He  had  examined  their  religious 
rites,  and  found  they  sanctioned  wickedness.  Dis¬ 
gusted  with  all,  he  retired  by  himself  to  discover  the 
truth  ;  and,  he  says,  “  While  I  was  giving  my  most 
earnest  attention  to  the  matter,  I  happened  to  meet 
with  certain  Barbaric  writings,  too  old  to  be  com¬ 
pared  with  the  opinions  of  the  Greeks,  and  too  divine 
to  be  compared  with  their  errors ;  and  I  was  led  to 
put  faith  in  these  by  the  unpretending  cast  of  the 
language,  inartificial  character  of  the  writers,  the 
foreknowledge  displayed  of  future  events,  the  excel¬ 
lent  quality  of  the  precepts,  and  the  declaration  of 
the  government  of  the  universe  as  centred  in  one 
Being ;  and  my  soul  being  taught  of  God,  I  discerned 
that  the  former  (Greek  philosophy)  set  of  writings 
leads  to  condemnation,  but  that  these  put  an  end 
to  the  slavery  that  is  in  the  world,  and  rescue  us 
from  a  multiplicity  of  rulers  and  ten  thousand  tyrants ; 
while  they  give  us,  not  indeed  what  we  had  not 
before  received,  but  what  we  had  received,  but  were 
prevented  by  error  from  retaining  (c.  30).  Therefore, 
being  initiated  and  instructed  in  these  things,  I  wish 
to  put  away  my  former  errors  as  the  follies  of 
childhood.” 

The  Greek  religion  is  regarded  by  Tatian  as  demon¬ 
worship  (c.  8,  10).  The  demons  have  reduced  men 
to  slavery,  and  perverted  their  minds  from  heavenly 
things  by  a  deceptive  display  of  power ;  they  are  the 


152  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

examples  of  all  crime  (c.  16,  17).  The  depravity  of 
man  is  the  secret  of  their  strength,  for  they  minister 
to  men’s  lusts  (c.  17,  19).  He  rejects  the  Greek 
philosophy  on  account  of  its  arrogant,  unpractical, 
and  indefinite  nature  (c.  2,  3),  and  because  of  the 
vices,  errors,  and  quarrels  of  the  philosophers.  He 
speaks  bitterly  throughout  (c.  25,  27).  His  Chris¬ 
tianity  had  not  made  him  a  happy  man  (c.  32). 
The  shadow  of  his  apostasy  seems  to  be  cast  before. 
Gnostic  tendencies  can  be  traced  in  his  Apology  (c.  t  2, 
13,  15,  16);  but  inasmuch  as  he  believed  that  the 
world  was  created  by  the  Word  (c.  5),  that  the  body 
would  rise  again  (c.  6),  and  that  no  distinction  was  to 
be  made  between  Christians  (c.  32),  it  cannot  be 
said  that  these  tendencies  had  attained  as  yet  a  high 
degree  of  development. 


ATHENAGORAS.  DATE  OF  APOLOGY,  1 77  A.D. 

Athenagoras  next  claims  our  attention.  He,  like 
Justin,  when  he  became  a  Christian,  did  not  cease 
to  be  a  philosopher.  He  styles  himself  Christian 
and  philosopher,  in  the  title  of  his  Apology.  If  we 
may  believe  a  tradition  of  the  5th  century,  he  was 
converted  to  Christianity  whilst  presiding  over  the 
Academic  School  at  Alexandria.1  It  was  his  object, 
like  Celsus,  to  write  against  the  Christians.  For  this 
purpose  he  studied  the  Divine  Scriptures,  and  while 
thus  engaged,  he  was  himself  caught  by  the  All-Holy 

1  So  Philip  of  Side.  See  Art.  “Athenagoras,”  Smith’s 
Dictionary  of  Christian  Biography. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


*53 


Spirit,  so  that,  like  Paul,  he  became  a  teacher  of  the 
faith  which  once  he  persecuted.  He  addressed  his 
“Embassy”  for  the  Christians,  about  the  year  177 
a.d.,  “  to  the  Emperors  Marcus  Aurelius  and  Com- 
modus,  conquerors  of  Armenia  and  Sarmatia ;  and 
more  than  all,  philosophers.”  Plis  opening  words 
are  remarkable,  and  show  the  grounds  on  which  he 
claimed  toleration. 

“  In  your  empire,”  he  says,  “greatest  of  sovereigns, 
different  nations  have  different  customs  and  laws  ; 
and  no  one  is  hindered  by  law  or  fear  of  punishment 
from  following  his  ancestral  usages,  however  ridicu¬ 
lous  these  may  be.  A  citizen  of  Ilium  calls  Hector 
a  god,  and  pays  divine  honours  to  Helen,  taking  her 
for  Adrasteia.  The  Lacedaemonian  venerates  Aga¬ 
memnon  as  Zeus,  and  Phylonoe  the  daughter  of 
Tyndarus,  and  the  men  of  Tenedos  worship  Tennes. 
The  Athenian  sacrifices  to  Erectheus  as  Poseidon.  The 
Athenians  also  perform  religious  rites  and  celebrate 
mysteries  in  honour  of  Agraulus  and  Pandrosus, 
women  who  were  deemed  guilty  of  impiety  for  opening 
the  box.  In  short,  among  every  nation  and  people, 
men  offer  whatever  sacrifices,  and  celebrate  whatever 
mysteries,  they  please.  The  Egyptians  reckon  among 
their  gods,  even  cats,  and  crocodiles,  and  serpents, 
and  asps,  and  dogs.  And  to  all  these,  both  you  and 
the  laws  give  permission  so  to  act ;  deeming,  on  the 
one  hand,  that  belief  in  no  god  at  all  is  impious  and 
wicked ;  and  on  the  other,  that  it  is  necessary  for  each 
man  to  worship  the  gods  he  prefers,  in  order  that 
through  the  fear  of  the  deity,  man  may  be  kept  from 
wrong-doing.” 


154  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

Why,  he  goes  on  to  ask,  is  a  mere  name  odious 
to  you  ?  Names  are  not  deserving  of  hatred  ;  it  is  the 
unjust  act  that  calls  for  punishment.  Throughout  the 
empire  all  enjoy  equal  rights  and  profound  peace  ; 
all,  except  the  Christians.  Not  that  they  had  com¬ 
mitted  any  wrong.  Nay  !  as  he  will  show,  they  are 
of  all  men  most  piously  and  righteously  disposed 
toward  God  and  the  rulers  of  the  State,  and  yet  it 
was  allowed  to  the  multitude  to  harass,  plunder,  and 
persecute  them  simply  for  their  name.  He  ventures 
to  lay  a  statement  of  their  case  before  the  emperors. 
If  any  can  convict  them  of  a  crime,  be  it  great  or 
small,  they  do  not  ask  to  be  excused  from  judgment 
(c.  2);  but  if  the  accusations  relate  only  to  the  name, 
if  they  rest  only  on  popular  talk,  then  it  behoves  the 
emperors  to  take  legal  measures  for  the  removal  of  this 
despiteful  treatment.  Three  charges,  he  says,  were 
brought  against  the  Christians,  Atheism,  Thyestean 
Feasts,  Hidipodean  intercourse  (c.  3).  If  they  are 
true,  destroy  us,  root  and  branch,  with  our  wives  and 
children.  If  they  are  only  idle  tales  and  empty  slan¬ 
ders,  you  ought  to  make  inquiries  concerning  our 
life,  our  opinions,  and  our  loyalty,  and  grant  us  the 
same  rights  as  our  persecutors. 

Athenagoras  then  proceeds  to  defend  the  Christians 
on  the  three  charges.  The  Christians  were  not  atheists; 
they  worshipped  o?ie  God,  and  there  could  not  be 
more  than  one.  They  did  not  worship  images,  for 
they  distinguished  God  from  material  substances. 
They  did  not  worship  nature,  they  reckoned  it  to  be 
only  God’s  house,  and  they  looked  beyond  to  Him 
who  made  it.  They  did  not  worship  the  gods  of  the 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


T55 


heathen,  for  they  were  but  of  yesterday,  they  had 
bodily  form  and  fleshly  desires.  Poets  and  philoso¬ 
phers  agreed  with  Christians  here.  It  was  the  evil 
spirits,  greedy  of  sacrificial  odours  and  the  blood  of 
victims,  who  had  seduced  the  ignorant  to  worship  gods 
like  these. 

The  stories  of  impious  feasts  had,  he  says,  been 
made  up,  to  justify  the  popular  hatred,  to  terrify  the 
Christians  themselves,  and  to  induce  the  ruler  to  deal 
harshly  with  them.  He  remarks  that  it  has  always 
been  common  for  vice  to  make  war  on  virtue.  But 
the  emperors,  who  excel  in  intelligence,  must  know, 
that  that  life  which  is  directed  towards  God  as  its  rule, 
is  likely  to  be  the  most  pure.  The  Christians’  account 
is  not  with  human  laws,  which  a  bad  man  can  evade. 
They  know  that  they  are  liable  to  God  for  the  looks 
of  their  eyes,  and  the  very  thoughts  of  their  hearts. 
Oh,  what  a  difference  there  is  between  them  and  the 
heathen,  with  their  impurities,  and  unnatural  crimes, 
and  their  gladiatorial  contests !  The  accusations 
brought  are  an  example  of  the  proverb,  “  The  harlot 
reproves  the  chaste.”  The  Christians  will  not  even 
look  upon  murders  in  the  games,  how,  then,  is  it  likely 
that  they  will  themselves  commit  murder?  They  believe 
in  the  resurrection  of  the  dead,  how  is  likely  that  they 
should  make  themselves  tombs  for  bodies  that  will  rise 
again  ?  He  concludes  with  the  following  appeal : — 

“  And  now  do  you,  who  are  entirely  in  everything, 
by  nature  and  by  education,  upright,  and  moderate, 
and  benevolent,  and  worthy  of  your  rule,  now  that 
I  have  disposed  of  the  several  accusations,  and  proved 
that  we  are  pious,  and  gentle,  and  temperate  in  spirit, 


156  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

bend  your  royal  head  in  approval ;  for  who  are  more 
deserving  to  obtain  the  things  that  they  ask,  than 
those  who,  like  us,  pray  for  your  government,  that  you 
may,  as  is  most  equitable,  receive  the  kingdom,  son 
from  father,  and  that  your  empire  may  receive  in¬ 
crease  and  addition,  all  men  becoming  subject  to 
your  sway  ?  And  this  is  also  for  our  advantage,  that 
we  mny  lead  a  peaceable  and  quiet  life,  and  may 
ourselves  readily  perform  all  that  is  commanded 
us.” 

The  “ Embassy”  of  Athenagoras  is  a  model  apology. 
Its  author  had  a  clear  conception  of  the  arguments 
likely  to  attain  his  end ;  he  knew  how  far  to  go,  and 
when  to  stop.  There  was  no  danger  in  attacking  the 
heathen  religion  and  mythology  in  a  work  addressed 
to  a  philosopher  like  Marcus  Aurelius  ;  philosophers 
before  him  had  done  the  same  thing.  Athenagoras 
studiously  endeavours  to  place  the  Christians  on  the 
same  footing  with  them ;  he  uses  their  writings  to 
show  the  reasonableness  of  Christian  doctrine,  and 
he  is  very  sparing  in  his  censure  of  them.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  does  not  enter  into  minute  discussion 
of  Christian  doctrines,  or  detailed  accounts  of  Chris¬ 
tian  ceremonies,  like  Justin.  He  was  simply  endea¬ 
vouring  to  deliver  the  Christians  from  persecution  by 
clearing  them  from  the  charge  of  impiety  and  immo¬ 
rality,  and  all  his  statements  have  reference  to  this. 
His  object  is,  to  show  that  the  Christian  religion  is  at 
least  as  worthy  of  toleration  as  many  others  which 
the  State  tolerated  without  difficulty.  The  modera¬ 
tion,  and  elegance,  and  judgment,  with  which  he 
states  his  case,  are  worthy  of  all  praise. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


157 


EPISTLE  TO  DIOGNETUS.  120  A.D.  CIRCA. 

The  Epistle  to  Diognetus  is  a  very  interesting  anony¬ 
mous  fragment.  Its  first  chapter  gives  us  some  of  the 
points  in  Christian  life  and  character  which  specially 
attracted  the  attention  of  the  heathen,  and  led  them 
to  be  curious  about  the  Christians’  God  and  the 
Christian  religion. 

Diognetus  had  observed  that  the  Christians  looked 
down  upon  the  world,  and  despised  death.  He  had 
noticed  that  they  neither  reverenced  the  Greek  gods, 
nor  held  to  the  Jewish  religion.  He  saw  also  that 
they  cherished  a  remarkable  affection  amongst  them¬ 
selves.  In  consequence  he  inquired  very  earnestly  and 
carefully  in  what  God  they  trusted,  and  what  religion 
they  observed,  and  why  it  had  been  so  late  in  entering 
into  the  world.  The  author  cordially  welcomes  this 
desire,  and  prays  God  that  he  may  speak  to  edifi¬ 
cation. 

The  author  realizes  very  vividly  the  wretched  state 
of  the  world  before  the  coming  of  the  Word.  The 
heathen  were  worshipping  images  of  wood  and  stone. 
The  Jews  were  worshipping  the  true  God  in  a  wrong 
way.  The  doctrines  of  those  philosophers  deemed 
trustworthy,  were  vain  and  silly.  God  appeared  to 
neglect  men,  and  to  have  no  care  for  them.  He  per¬ 
mitted  them  to  be  borne  along  by  unruly  impulses. 
Then,  when  it  was  manifest  that  we  in  ourselves  were 
unable  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God,  when  our 
wickedness  had  reached  its  height,  and  punishment 
and  death  were  impending  over  us — the  one  love  of 
God  did  not  remember  our  iniquity  against  us,  but 


158  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

showed  great  long-suffering  and  bore  with  us.  “  He 
Himself  took  on  Him  the  burden  of  our  iniquities, 
He  gave  His  own  Son  as  a  ransom  for  us,  the  Holy 
One  for  transgressors,  the  Blameless  One  for  the 
wicked,  the  Righteous  One  for  the  unrighteous,  the 
Incorruptible  One  for  the  corruptible,  the  Immortal 
One  for  them  that  are  mortal.  For  what  other  thing 
was  capable  of  covering  our  sins  than  His  righteous¬ 
ness  ?  By  what  other  one  was  it  possible  that  we, 
the  wicked  and  ungodly,  could  be  justified  than  by 
the  only  Son  of  God  ?  O  sweet  exchange  !  O  un¬ 
searchable  operation !  O  benefits  surpassing  all  ex¬ 
pectation  !  that  the  wickedness  of  many  should  be 
hid  in  a  single  Righteous  One,  and  that  the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  One  should  justify  many  transgressors. 
Having,  therefore,  convinced  us  in  the  former  time 
that  our  nature  was  unable  to  attain  to  life,  and  having 
now  revealed  the  Saviour,  who  is  able  to  save  even 
those  things  which  it  was  impossible  to  save, — by  both 
these  facts  God  desired  to  lead  us  to  trust  in  His  kind¬ 
ness,  to  esteem  Him  our  Nourisher,  Father,  Teacher, 
Counsellor,  Healer,  our  Wisdom,  Light,  Honour, 
Glory,  Power,  and  Life,  so  that  we  should  not  be 
anxious  about  food  or  clothing.” 

We  do  not  often  meet  with  passages  like  this  in  the 
Apologies.  In  fact,  this  letter  is  rather  an  exhortation 
than  an  apology.  It  makes  no  allusion  to  the  charges 
brought  against  the  Christian. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS. 


*59 


THEOPHILUS, 

BISHOP  OF  ANTIOCH.  168-181  OR  186  A.D. 

The  three  letters  of  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
to  Autolycus,  a  heathen,  may  be  passed  over  with  a 
very  slight  notice.  We  know  little  of  Theophilus 
himself ;  but  it  is  worth  noticing  that  he,  too,  owed 
his  conversion  to  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures.  He 
met  with  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  and  studied 
the  prophecies,  and  believed  (i.  14).  Perhaps  it  is  in 
consequence  of  this  that  he  gives,  in  great  detail,  the 
Old  Testament  history,  and  lays  great  stress  on  the 
accurate  and  ancient  information  therein  contained. 
His  object  seems  to  be  to  induce  Autolycus  to  enter 
upon  the  same  study  (ii.  4-8).  Pie  contrasts  the  dis¬ 
cordant  and  foolish  statements  of  the  poets  and 
philosophers  with  the  consistent,  and  harmonious,  and 
God-inspired  utterances  of  the  long  line  of  Hebrew 
prophets  (ii.  9).  Along  with  these  he  classes  the 
Greek  Sibyl,  and  he  quotes  from  her  at  length  an 
exhortation  to  forsake  the  worship  of  images,  and  to 
worship  the  one  Supreme  God,  the  Maker  of  heaven 
and  earth  (ii.  36).  He  rebuts  the  usual  accusations 
in  the  usual  way. 


CLEMENT  OF  ALEXANDRIA,  TEACHER  OF  THE  CATE¬ 
CHETICAL  SCHOOL  AT  ALEXANDRIA.  190-200  A.D. 

Clement  of  Alexandria’s  address  to  the  Greeks  is 
quite  as  much  hortatory  as  apologetic.  He  attacks 


l6o  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

the  heathen  religion,  but  does  not  defend  the  Chris¬ 
tians  from  accusation.  He  endeavours  to  attract  to 
Christianity  by  a  description  of  the  beauty  of  its 
doctrines.  The  spirit  of  the  whole  work  is  best  illus- 
strated  by  its  opening  chapter. 

In  the  Greek  legends  certain  minstrels  were  re¬ 
nowned  for  the  power  of  their  song.  Amphion  of 
Thebes  had  allured  fishes,  Arion  of  Methymna  had 
surrounded  Thebes  with  walls,  by  the  power  of  music. 
The  Thracian  Orpheus  had  tamed  wild  beasts  and 
transplanted  trees,  by  the  might  of  his  song.  “Do  you 
believe,”  says  Clement,  “  all  these  vain  fables,  and  are 
you  only  incredulous  concerning  the  Truth?  Let  us 
bring  down  from  heaven,  Truth,  with  Wisdom  in  all  her 
brightness,  and  the  sacred  prophetic  choir.  Let  her 
cast  her  rays  all  round  on  those  sitting  in  darkness. 
Let  all  men  cease  to  listen  to  their  old,  deceiving, 
demon-inspired  hymns,  and  listen  to  the  new,  and 
immortal,  and  divine  songs.  Those  minstrels  were 
all  deceivers,  unworthy  of  the  name,  by  their  songs 
and  incantations  corrupting  human  life  under  the 
pretence  of  poetry,  possessed  with  a  spirit  of  sorcery 
for  the  purposes  of  destruction,  celebrating  crime, 
enticing  to  idols,  bringing  into  bondage  the  free  citi¬ 
zens  of  heaven.  Not  such  is  my  song.  It  has  come 
to  loose,  and  that  speedily,  the  bitter  bondage  of  the 
tyrant  demons,  and  to  lead  us  back  to  the  mild  and 
loving  yoke  of  piety ;  it  recalls  to  heaven  those  who 
have  been  cast  prostrate  to  the  earth.  It  alone  has 
tamed  men,  the  most  intractable  of  animals.  Men 
were  like  the  beasts,  nay,  were  like  the  stocks  and 
stones  in  their  stupidity,  like  the  serpents  in  their 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS.  l6l 

deceitfulness,  like  the  wolves  in  their  rapacity.  But 
all  such  most  savage  beasts,  and  all  such  blocks  of 
stone,  the  heavenly  song  has  transformed  into  tract¬ 
able  men.  Behold  the  might  of  the  new  song !  It 
has  made  men  out  of  stones,  men  out  of  beasts.  The 
dead,  even,  have  heard  it,  and  have  become  partakers 
of  the  true  life.  The  universe  has  been  composed  by 
it  into  melodious  order,  the  discord  of  the  elements 
has  been  tuned,  so  that  the  whole  world  has  become 
harmony.  This  deathless  strain  has  reached  from 
pole  to  pole,  and  has  harmonized  all  things  according 
to  the  paternal  counsel  of  God.  On  man  himself, 
composed  of  body  and  soul,  a  microcosm,  an  instru¬ 
ment  of  many  strings,  tuned  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
Word  of  God  makes  melody.  A  beautiful  breathing 
instrument  of  music  the  Lord  made  man.  He  is 
God’s  lute  and  harp,  and  to  Him  he  sings  accordant. 
The  Celestial  Word  is  also  Himself  the  melodious 
holy  instrument  of  God.  He  is  the  New  Song,  This 
instrument  of  God  loves  mankind.  Many  are  the 
tones  in  in  which  He  speaks  to  them.  Sometimes 
He  upbraids,  sometimes  He  threatens,  some  men  He 
mourns  over,  some  men  He  cheers  with  His  melody 
To  all  He  speaks,  and  calls  them  to  salvation,  and 
rescues  them  from  the  wicked  tyrant  who  binds  them 
fast.” 

The  whole  exhortation  is  only  an  expansion  of  the 
ideas  contained  here.  We  have  an  exposure  of  the 
heathen  mythology,  the  opinions  of  philosophers,  and 
the  fables  of  the  poets.  At  the  same  time  it  is  con¬ 
fessed  that  Plato  and  others  touched  the  truth.  The 
Scriptures  (in  which  term  he  includes  the  Sibyl)  alone 


]  62 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


present  us  with  the  appliances  necessary  for  the  attain* 
ment  of  piety.  Devoid  of  outward  beauty  and  em¬ 
bellishment,  they  raise  up  humanity  strangled  by 
wickedness,  to  despise  the  casualties  of  life.  The 
prophets  form  one  harmonious  choir  under  one  leader 
and  teacher — The  Word.  They  attain  to  and  rest  in 
the  same  truth,  and  cry,  Abba,  Father.  Clement  pic¬ 
tures  the  great  blessings  offered  to  the  world  by  Christ. 
He  describes  Him  as  inviting  all  to  come  to  Him. 
He  urges  all  to  hasten  to  accept  the  invitation. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  this  work  of  Clement, 
though  commonly  included  amongst  the  Apologies, 
is  really  an  exhortation  to  the  heathen  to  become 
Christians.  Its  idea  cannot  be  better  expressed  than 
in  the  words  of  a  modern  hymn  : — 

Come,  weary  souls,  for  Jesus  bids  you  come  : 

And  through  the  dark,  its  echoes  sweetly  ringing, 

The  music  of  the  Gospel  leads  us  home. 


ORIGEN.  185-255  A.D. 

Origens  life  is  far  too  vast  a  subject  to  deal  with 
in  a  paragraph,  and  so  we  shall  leave  it  untouched, 
and  confine  our  attention  to  the  Apology  which 
he  wrote.  In  one  respect  this  is  unique  amongst 
early  Apologies.  It  is  not  a  general  but  a  particular 
defence.  It  is  an  answer  to  a  book  written  by  a 
philosopher  called  Celsus,  seventy  years  before. 
Origen’s  method  is  to  take  and  refute  seriatim  the 
different  accusations  brought  by  him. 


THE  GREEK  APOLOGISTS.  1 63 

As  we  have  already  seen,  Celsus  was  not  a  formid¬ 
able  antagonist.  He  knew  many  things  about,  but  not 
much  of,  Christianity.  He  was  well  acquainted  with 
the  Gospel  narrative,  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
and  the  many  legends  which  popular  rumour,  the 
malice  of  the  Jews,  and  the  unrestrained  imagination 
of  the  heretics,  had  invented  concerning  Christians 
and  their  religion.  But  he  had  no  notion  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  as  a  whole.  He  attacks  particular  points  in 
it  without  considering  them  as  parts  of  a  system. 
He  makes  no  consistent  attack.  His  idea  seems  to 
be,  that  if  he  throws  enough  mud  some  of  it  will  be 
sure  to  stick.  He  brings  the  ordinary  accusations 
against  the  Christians,  but  with  this  difference,  he 
endeavours  to  trace  them  home  to  the  spirit  of 
Christianity.  Like  others  he  charges  them  with  im¬ 
morality  (iii.  59,  64,  73,  74),  and  this  is  natural 
enough,  for  the  worst  of  men  are  invited  to  their 
society  (i.  62,  63).  He  charges  them  with  foolishness , 
and  what  are  they  always  saying,  but  “  Do  not  ex¬ 
amine,  but  believe”  (i.  9.  13).  “  The  wisdom  of  this 
world  is  foolishness.”  He  charges  them  with  impiety , 
and,  confounding  them  with  the  Gnostic  heretics 
called  Ophites,  he  declares  it  is  part  of  their  belief  to 
execrate  the  Creator  of  the  world. 

Origen’s  defence  necessarily  took  its  form  from  the 
attack.  He  takes  each  statement  of  Celsus  and  in¬ 
vestigates  it  separately.  He  clears  away  misrepre¬ 
sentations.  He  distinguishes  between  Catholics  and 
Heretics,  and  he  adduces  the  evidences  of  prophecy 
and  miracles.  Probably  the  extracts  from  Celsus  are 
to  us  the  most  valuable  part  of  Origen’s  work.  There 

m  2 


164 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


are  extant  many  early  Apologies  for  Christianity,  but 
no  complete  early  attack.  It  is  important  that  we 
should  be  able  to  realize  what  appearance  Christianity 
presented  to  the  heathen  of  those  early  times,  and 
this  Origen’s  extracts  effect  for  us  in  some  measure.1 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


165 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 

We  pass  on  to  consider  the  Latin  Apologists,  who 
lived  in  the  3rd  century  a.d.  We  do  not  find  them,  as 
we  might  have  expected,  in  the  Church  of  Rome. 
In  these  early  times  she  was  distinguished  rather  for 
her  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  faith  than  for  her  learn¬ 
ing.  The  African  Church,  now  so  utterly  fallen  to 
decay,  gave  to  the  Christians  the  earliest  defenders 
who  wrote  in  the  Latin  tongue. 


TERTULLIAN.  150-2  20  A.D. 

The  first  in  time,  and  in  other  respects  the  most 
important  of  all  the  Latin  Apologists,  is  Tertullian. 
Of  his  life  we  know  little,  but  his  works  are  most 
numerous  and  valuable,  and  leave  untouched  few 
points  relating  to  Christian  faith  and  practice. 
Amongst  them  are  contained  four  treatises  of  an 
Apologetic  nature.  Two  only  need  be  considered 
by  us,  his  “  Apologetic  Book,”  and  his  “  Testimony 
of  the  Soul.” 

The  Apology . — No  early  defence  of  the  Christians 
can  be  compared  in  force  and  completeness  with  the 
“Apologetic  Book”  of  Tertullian.  We  miss,  indeed, 


1 66 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


that  moderation,  and  elegance,  and  wide  sympathy, 
which  are  found  so  markedly  in  the  “  Embassy  ”  of 
Athenagoras.  One  cannot  help  feeling  that  Tertullian’s 
logic  was  too  keen  for  his  purpose.  He  seems  to  wish 
to  prove  his  case,  rather  than  to  win  his  cause.  It 
was  dangerous  and  impolitic  to  press  home  argu¬ 
ments,  when  the  enemy  had  material  power  on  his 
side.  Retort  was  out  of  place  in  an  Apology.  It 
only  embittered  the  controversy,  and  conciliation  was 
required.  Such  considerations  were,  however,  quite 
beneath  Tertullian’s  notice.  He  seems  to  have  been 
of  a  stern  and  harsh  character.  His  own  religion, 
and  his  judgment  on  that  of  others,  were  hard  and 
unsympathizing.  Hence  we  find  him  attacking  the 
heathen  with  relentless  vigour.  His  is  not  the  tone 
of  a  suppliant  pleading  for  toleration.  He  demands 
justice.  Arraigned  as  a  criminal  at  the  bar,  he 
accuses  and  condemns  his  judges. 

His  Apology  was  addressed  to  the  governors  and 
proconsulars  of  Africa,  and  was  written  almost  exactly 
at  the  commencement  of  the  third  century.  Like 
most  of  the  Apologies,  it  is  an  appeal  to  the  autho¬ 
rities  that  the  Christians  should  not  be  condemned 
unheard.  Tertullian  opens  his  case  by  objecting  to 
the  mode  of  procedure  at  the  trials.  The  forms  of 
law  were  not  observed.  The  accused  were  not 
allowed  to  defend  themselves  against  the  popular 
accusations.  Their  treatment  was  wholly  different 
from  that  adopted  at  the  trials  of  other  criminals. 
When  accused  of  the  crime  of  Christianity,  confession 
of  guilt  was  followed  by  torture  to  force  them  to  a 
denial  of  guilt.  On  the  other  hand,  a  denial  of  their 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  167 

guilt  was  at  once  accepted,  and  they  were  let  go  free. 
Inasmuch  as,  in  the  courts,  all  turned  on  the  answer  to 
the  question,  “  Are  you  a  Christian?”  it  came  to  pass 
that  the  title  Christian  summed  up  in  one  word  all 
the  reproaches  and  accusations  which  the  hatred  of 
the  times  had  invented.  What  is  there  in  this  name 
to  excite  your  hatred  ?  whether  it  be  Christian,  which 
speaks  of  anointing  and  Christ  our  founder,  or 
Chrestian,  as  you  wrongly  call  it,  which  tells  of  sweet¬ 
ness  and  benignity. 

Proceeding  from  the  trial  to  the  accusation  (c.  4), 
Tertullian  is  the  first  of  the  Apologists  who  goes 
fairly  into  the  charge,  that  the  Christians  formed  a 
body  unrecognized  by  law. 

When  the  Christians  had  been  able  to  prove  their 
innocence  of  the  crimes  charged  against  them,  their 
accusers  fell  back  on  the  authority  of  the  laws,  and 
said,  “  It  is  not  lawful  for  you  to  exist.”  Tertullian 
argues  that  justice  is  the  foundation  of  law.  A  thing 
should  be  unlawful,  not  because  men  wish  it  so  to  be, 
but  because  it  ought  so  to  be.  This  particular  law 
has  not  dropped  down  from  heaven  ;  if  it  is  a  bad  one, 
it  can  be  repealed.  Laws  have  been  changed,  are 
being  changed  every  day,  and  many  still  require  to  be 
changed ;  then  why  not  this,  if  reason  be  shown  ?  He 
remarks  that  the  laws  against  the  Christians  were  only 
enforced  by  unjust  and  wicked  emperors, — emperors 
like  Nero,  the  first  to  assail  them,  and  like  Domitian, 
a  man  of  the  same  type  in  cruelty;  emperors  like 
Trajan,  Antoninus  Pius,  or  Marcus  Aurelius,  had 
never  persecuted  them.1  “What  sort  of  laws,”  he 
1  Facts  seem  to  be  against  Tertullian  here. 


i68 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


asks,  “  are  these  which  the  impious  only  use  against 
us  ?  Moreover,  who  are  you,  that  you  should  set 
yourselves  up  as  protectors  of  the  laws  and  institutions 
of  your  fathers  ?  Where  is  the  ancient  simplicity  of 
life,  and  purity  of  morals  ?  It  is  utterly  gone.  What 
has  become  of  your  ancient  religion?  You  have 
introduced  new  gods.  In  your  dress,  your  food,  your 
style  of  life,  in  your  opinions,  and  even  in  your  speech, 
you  have  renounced  your  ancestors. 

Proceeding  to  the  charges  of  immorality ,  Tertullian 
argues  that  they  rest,  notwithstanding  watches  and 
surprises,  on  rumour  only.  “  Everybody  knows  what 
sort  of  a  thing  rumour  is;  it  is  essentially  lying. 
Even  its  truths  are  mixed  with  falsehood;  it  is  the 
very  designation  of  uncertainty.  It  has  no  place 
when  proof  is  given  and  the  truth  is  known.  Does 
any  but  a  fool  put  his  trust  in  it?  Yet  it  is  the  only 
witness  you  can  bring  against  us  (c.  8).  Moreover, 
these  charges  are  intrinsically  improbable.  Human 
nature  is  incapable  of  such  baseness.  Christians  are 
men  as  well  as  you.”  Then,  curiously  but  charac¬ 
teristically  enough,  Tertullian  turns  round  (c.  9),  and 
retorts  the  same  charges  against  the  heathen ;  in  so 
doing,  he  overthrows,  of  course,  this  last  argument. 

The  theological  charge  next  receives  his  attention 
(c.  10).  “  You  do  not,”  said  the  heathen,  “  worship  the 
gods,  and  you  do  not  offer  sacrifice  to  the  Emperor.” 
His  answer  is,  “  No,  we  do  not;  for  the  gods  you 
worship  are  no  gods  at  all.”  To  prove  his  point  he 
examines  the  statements  made  concerning  them  in 
heathen  books ;  he  shows  that  they  are  not  gods  by 
nature,  but  originally  men ;  that  they  were  not  made 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


169 


gods,  either  because  the  great  God  needed  their  aid, 
or  wished  to  reward  their  merit  (c.  n).  The  God 
who  created  and  ordered  the  world  in  the  beginning, 
needed  no  help  fiom  men  for  the  governing  of  it. 
The  merits  of  the  heathen  deities  were  not  of  a  kind 
to  have  raised  them  to  heaven,  but  rather  to  have 
sunk  them  into  the  lowest  depths  of  hell.  As  for  the 
images  of  the  gods,  in  what  do  they  differ  from 
common  vessels  and  utensils  ? 

He  draws  an  amusing  parallel  between  the  making 
of  images  and  the  persecuting  of  Christians.  The 
heathen  make  gods  in  the  same  way  that  they  kill 
Christians.  “  In  their  fashioning  you  fix  them  to 
frames,  and  in  our  execution  you  fix  us  to  crosses 
and  stakes ;  you  tear  our  sides  with  claws,  you  use 
axes,  and  planes,  and  rasps  on  every  member  of  their 
body.  We  are  headless  when  you  have  done  your 
worst  upon  us,  they  are  headless  before  you  have 
used  your  lead,  and  glue,  and  nails.  You  drive  us  to 
wild  beasts,  and  lions  and  tigers  are  their  constant 
attendants.  We  are  burnt  in  the  fire,  and  so  is  the 
metal  of  which  they  are  composed.  We  are  con¬ 
demned  to  the  mines,  and  from  thence  their  original 
lump  came.  We  are  banished  to  islands, — in  islands 
it  is  common  for  the  gods  to  be  born  or  to  die. 
Spite  of  all  this,  ‘  They  are  gods  to  us/  you  say  (c.  12). 
Indeed  !  How  is  it,  then,  that  you  are  convicted  of  im¬ 
pious  and  sacrilegious  conduct  to  them  ?  With  you, 
deity  depends  upon  a  decision  of  the  Senate.  With 
you,  gods  are  pledged,  sold,  broken  up,  changed  into 
cooking-pots  and  firepans.  With  you,  deity  is  made 
a  gain  of  and  farmed  out  to  the  highest  bidder.  The 


170  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

more  sacred  a  god  is,  the  larger  is  the  tax  he  pays. 
Majesty  is  made  a  source  of  gain.  Religion  goes 
about  the  taverns  begging.  You  enrol  amongst  your 
ancient  gods  your  prostitutes,  and  sorcerers,  and  infa¬ 
mous  court  pages  (c.  14).  You  offer  as  sacrifices 
diseased  and  dying  animals  (c.  15).  You  insult  your 
objects  of  worship,  in  your  books  and  theatres  by 
your  scoffs,  in  their  temples  and  at  their  very  altars 
by  your  crimes  ”  (c.  16). 

After  denying  the  truth  of  certain  absurd  stories  as 
to  the  object  of  the  Christian  worship,  Tertullian 
describes  what  that  object  really  is  (c.  17).  It  is  the 
one  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  Invisible,  Incom¬ 
prehensible,  the  true  God  because  immensely  great. 
To  Him  His  great  and  manifold  works,  and  the 
simple  soul  of  man  bear  witness  (c.  18).  Not  these 
alone,  His  written  Word  also, — the  writings  of  just 
men  on  whom  He  poured  His  Spirit;  ancient  writings, 
as  the  facts  of  history  show  (c.  19) ;  true  writings,  as 
the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  proves  (c.  20). 

Up  to  this  point,  no  Christian,  as  distinguished  from 
Jewish,  elements,  have  been  introduced;  but  now 
Tertullian  states  the  fundamental  distinction  between 
Judaism  and  Christianity  (c.  21).  The  Jews  consider 
Christ  to  be  a  mere  man ;  the  Christians  believe  Him 
to  be  God.  He  describes  the  nature  of  Christ’s 
divinity.  He  is  the  Word  of  God,  by  whom  all  things 
were  made.  As  the  rays  proceed  forth  from  the  sun, 
and  there  is  no  division,  so  the  Son  of  God  came 
forth  from  His  Father,  and  yet  the  two  are  one.  The 
Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  amongst  us,  and 
proved  His  divinity  by  His  wonderful  works  in  His 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  17  I 

life,  and  His  death,  and  His  resurrection.  Of  these 
things  Pilate  was  a  witness,  who  sent  an  account  of 
them  to  Tiberius.1  Is  there,  then,  anything  in  the 
origin  and  Founder  of  our  Name  that  should  cause 
you  to  persecute  it  so  cruelly?  Your  duty  is  to 
search  and  see  whether  the  divinity  of  Christ  is  true. 
If  the  acceptance  of  its  truth  transforms  a  man  and 
makes  him  truly  good,  then  you  are  bound  (as  we 
have  felt  ourselves  already)  to  renounce  the  worship 
of  other  gods. 

Tertullian  now  describes  what  the  heathen  worship 
really  is.  It  is  worship  of  demons.  It  is  they  who 
give  to  the  heathen  religion  its  power  over  men. 
They  are  the  cause  of  all  the  mischief  on  the  face  of 
the  world.  Their  great  business  is  the  ruin  of  man¬ 
kind.  Still,  all  unwillingly,  they  are  most  effective 
witnesses  for  Christ.  When  those  possessed  by  them 
are  brought  to  us,  and  we  adjure  them  in  the  name  of 
Christ,  they  confess  what  they  are,  even  the  gods  you 
worship,  and  they  bear  testimony  to  the  truth  of 
Christian  doctrine.  Fearing  Christ  in  God,  and  God 
in  Christ,  they  become  subject  to  the  servants  of  God 
and  Christ  (c.  23).  So  at  one  touch  and  breathing, 
overwhelmed  by  the  thought  and  realization  of  the 
judgment  fires,  they  leave  at  our  command  the  bodies 
they  have  entered,  unwilling  and  distressed,  and  put 
to  open  shame  (c.  24).  The  whole  confession  of 
these  beings,  in  which  they  declare  they  are  no  gods, 
and  that  there  is  no  God  but  one, — the  God  whom 
we  adore,  is  quite  sufficient  to  clear  us  from  the  crime 
of  treason  against  the  Roman  religion.  If  these  gods 

Tertullian  is  probably  here  referring  to  a  Christian  forgery. 


172  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

have  no  existence,  there  is  no  religion  in  the  case. 
Even  if  they  have  an  existence,  is  it  not  generally  held 
that  there  is  One  above  them?  Can  we  give  His 
glory  to  another  ?  Under  any  circumstances  is  un¬ 
willing  homage  of  any  value?  All  other  nations, 
provinces,  and  even  cities,  have  their  own  gods,  why 
should  we  only  be  prevented  from  having  a  religion 
of  our  own? 

The  objection  is  now  started,  If  the  Christian 
theory  is  true,  the  heathen  gods  are  no  gods  at  all, 
and  yet  history  shows  that  the  Romans  have  been 
prosperous  because  they  have  been  pious.  Tertul- 
lian  is  treading  on  delicate  ground  now,  and  he  is 
not  the  man  to  tread  delicately  (c.  25,  26).  He 
proves,  and  proves  conclusively,  that  history  does  not 
bear  out  this  theory.  The  Romans  were  great  before 
they  were  religious ;  they  triumphed  over  gods,  and 
not  till  then  worshipped  them.  But  he  is  not  satisfied 
with  this.  He  finds  instances  where  the  gods  did 
not  exercise  their  power  in  the  defence  of  their  wor¬ 
shippers,  and  he  brings  these  forward  as  proofs 
of  want  of  power.  Non-exercise  of  Divine  power, 
according  to  Tertullian,  proves  its  non-existence. 
Every  martyrdom  showed  the  fallacy  of  this  argument. 

The  last  charge  Tertullian  meets  is  that  of  treason 
against  the  Emperor  (c.  28).  It  was  based  simply 
on  the  fact  that  the  Christians  refused  to  pay  him 
divine  worship  (c.  28-36).  As  Tertullian  explains, 
the  Christian  religion  forbids  its  followers  to  invoke 
a  mere  man — even  the  ruler  of  the  world ;  but  it 
requires  them  to  invoke  God  for  his  safety,  and  to 
pay  him  the  respect  due  to  his  position  and  to  the 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


173 


minister  of  God  (c.  32).  They  have  special  reasons 
for  their  prayers,  for  with  the  fall  of  the  Roman 
empire  will  come  the  violent  commotions  which  are 
impending  over  the  whole  world.  As  usual,  Ter- 
tullian  is  not  satisfied  with  showing  that  the  Christians 
are  loyal,  but  he  proceeds  to  show  that  they  alone  are 
loyal  (c.  35-36),  he  points  to  the  prevalence  of  treason. 
In  spite  of  the  provocation  the  Christians  have  re¬ 
ceived,  their  names  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  lists  of 
conspirators  ;  their  numbers  make  them  formidable, 
but  their  principles  make  them  harmless  (c.  37). 

Tertullian  next  explains  (c.  38,  39)  the  nature  of 
the  Christian  Society,  with  the  intention  of  showing 
that  it  contains  none  of  the  characteristics  of  a  faction, 
nothing  to  make  it  formidable  to  the  State,  and, 
therefore,  nothing  to  prevent  its  toleration.  He 
asserts  (c.  40)  that  the  Christians,  so  far  from  being 
the  cause  of  public  calamity,  have  been  in  reality  the 
very  salt  of  the  earth.  He  meets  and  denies  the 
charge  of  unprofitableness  in  the  concerns  of  life 
(c.  42).  He  boasts  of  the  superior  morality  of  the 
Christians  (c.  43,  44),  and  ascribes  it  to  their  rule  of 
life,  which  is  not  human,  but  divine  (c.  45). 

And  now  we  notice  one  of  the  characteristics  of 
the  Latin  Apologists  (c.  46) :  he  is  most  anxious  to 
maintain  the  independent  claims  of  Christianity.  Un¬ 
belief,  convinced  of  the  worth  of  Christianity,  sug¬ 
gested  that  it  was,  notwithstanding,  not  really  divine, 
but  only  a  kind  of  philosophy.  Innocence,  justice,  pa¬ 
tience,  sobriety,  and  chastity,  were  just  the  very  things 
which  the  philosophers  counselled  and  professed. 

“  Is  this  so  ?”  says  Tertullian,  “  then  why  do  you  not 


174  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

treat  us  like  the  philosophers  ?  No  one  compels  a 
philosopher  to  sacrifice  or  take  an  oath.  Nay,  they 
openly  overthrow  your  gods,  and  you  applaud  them 
for  it.  But  are  we,  indeed,  like  the  philosophers? 
Far  from  it.  The  name  of  philosophers  drives  out 
no  wicked  spirits ;  philosophers  merely  affect  to  hold 
the  truth,  and  all  the  while  they  corrupt  it.  We 
Christians  ardently  and  intensely  long  for  it,  and 
maintain  it  in  its  integrity.  We  are  like  philosophers 
neither  in  our  knowledge  nor  in  our  ways.  The 
philosophers  do  not  know  God;  but  He  has  been 
revealed  to  us.  The  philosophers  do  not  practise 
the  virtues  they  recommend:  we  must  and  do.  No 
doubt  the  teachings  of  the  philosophers  and  the 
Christians  are,  in  some  respects,  similar  (c.  47).  The 
reason  is,  the  poets  and  sophists  have  drunk  from 
the  fountain  of  the  prophets.  At  least  we  are  entitled 
to  argue  that  our  doctrines  are  not  utterly  foolish, 
if  like  to  those  of  your  wisest  men  (c.  49).  The 
ideas,  which  in  them  are  called  sublime  speculations 
and  illustrious  discoveries,  cannot  be  called  in  us 
presumptuous  speculations.  If  they  are  men  of 
wisdom,  we  cannot  be  fools.” 

Tertullian  concludes  by  appealing  against  the 
heathen  cruelty  (c.  50).  The  Christians  glory  in  their 
sufferings,  but  they  do  not  suffer  willingly.  They 
desire  to  suffer  as  the  soldier  longs  for  war.  In 
suffering  they  reap  glory  and  spoil,  and  in  death 
they  win  the  victory.  The  cruelty  of  the  heathen 
is  of  no  avail ;  the  blood  of  the  martyrs  is  the  seed 
of  the  Church  ;  the  deeds  of  the  Christians  find  more 
disciples  than  the  words  of  the  philosophers.  No 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


T75 


one  who  sees  the  fortitude  of  the  Christians,  fails 
to  inquire  what  is  the  cause  of  it ;  no  one  who 
has  inquired,  fails  to  embrace  their  doctrines ;  no 
one  who  has  embraced  their  doctrines,  is  unwilling 
to  suffer  for  them,  and  thus  obtain  from  God  full 
forgiveness. 

Tertullian’s  Apology  is  remarkable  for  its  arrange¬ 
ment.  He  had  a  definite  plan,  and  he  always  kept 
to  it.  He  shows  great  discretion  in  the  choice  of  his 
authorities.  Elsewhere,  he  constantly  quotes  the 
Scriptures ;  here,  very  rarely.  When  he  alludes  to 
them,  it  is  not  to  appeal  to  their  authority  but  as 
containing  information  on  Christian  doctrine.  What¬ 
ever  its  faults,  the  Apology  of  Tertullian  holds  the 
first  place  among  the  apologies  of  the  age.  It 
meets  the  accusations  fully  and  completely,  and  so 
accomplishes  its  chief  purpose.  No  one  can  fail  to 
admire  its  earnest  spirit.  Although  narrow  and  harsh 
in  its  judgments,  it  is  the  warm  appeal  of  a  warm 
heart. 

The  Testimony  of  the  Soul. — We  must  not  pass 
over,  without  notice,  the  argument  against  heathenism 
we  find  in  Tertullian’s  treatise  ‘On  the  Testimony  of 
the  Soul.’  He  alone,  of  all  the  Apologists,  refuses 
to  search  heathen  literature  for  testimonies  in  favour 
of  Christianity.  Such  arguments,  he  conceived,  were 
easily  set  aside;  they  required  great  research  for 
their  acquisition,  and  a  retentive  memory  for  their 
use.  So,  in  their  place,  he  calls  in  a  new  witness, 
a  witness  more  simple  and  better  known — The  soul 
of  man ;  meaning  thereby  that  part  of  man’s  nature 
which  makes  him  a  rational  being  in  the  highest 


176  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

degree  capable  of  thought  and  knowledge.  He  will 
not  have,  indeed,  the  soul  trained,  and  fashioned 
in,  and  corrupted  by,  the  wisdom  of  the  world, 
but  the  soul  simple,  rude,  unlearned,  untaught, 
as  far  as  might  be,  except  by  itself  and  its  Author. 
Not  yet  Christian,  he  presses  it  for  a  testimony 
on  behalf  of  Christians.  He  draws  this  testimony 
from  certain  expressions  which  it  uses  naturally 
and  constantly.  When  expressing  its  hopes  and 
wishes,  it  does  not  invoke  the  gods  for  help,  but 
it  says,  “  Which  may  God  grant,”  “  If  God  so  will.” 
It  thus  acknowledges  that  there  is  One  who  is  God 
and  Sovereign.  Yet  again,  it  says,  “  God  is  good,” 
and  “God  does  good,”  and  thus  it  declares  the  nature 
of  God ;  and,  by  contrast,  it  seems  to  imply  that  man 
is  evil,  and  has  departed  from  God.  It  says,  “  God 
sees  all ;  I  commend  thee  to  God “  May  God 
repay”;  “God  shall  judge  betwixt  us”;  and  thus  it 
confesses  God’s  providence,  His  power,  His  justice, 
and  a  future  retribution.  It  gives  these  testimonies 
whilst  in  the  temples,  and  whilst  engaged  in  the  sacred 
rites.  In  the  immediate  presence  of  its  gods,  it  appeals 
to  the  God  who  is  elsewhere.  And,  besides,  it  gives 
a  testimony  to  the  immortality  of  the  soul.  When 
it  speaks  of  the  dead,  it  says,  “  Poor  man.”  Why 
is  a  dead  man  poor,  if  he  has  lost  the  burden  of  life, 
and  is  beyond  the  feeling  of  pain?  It  curses  the  dead 
who  have  wronged  it,  and  it  blesses  the  dead  to  whom 
it  is  indebted  for  favours.  It  thus  shows  that  they 
are  not,  in  its  idea,  beyond  the  reach  of  blessing  and 
curse.  It  says  of  one  lately  dead,  “  He  is  gone.” 
He  is  expected  to  return,  then.  Nor  can  these 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


177 


testimonies  be  considered  frivolous  or  feeble  when 
it  is  recollected  that  the  soul  derives  all  its  knowledge 
from  Nature,  and  that  Nature’s  teachings  are  derived 
from  God.  Is  it  a  wonderful  thing  that,  fallen  though 
it  is,  it  cannot  forget  its  Creator,  His  goodness  and 
His  law,  and  its  own  end?  Is  it  wonderful  that,  being 
divine  in  its  origin,  its  revelation  agrees  with  those 
made  by  God  to  His  people  in  the  Jewish  Scriptures? 

There  is  an  obvious  answer  to  this  argument  which 
Tertullian  mentions.  The  expressions  he  has  alleged 
may  be  only  an  accommodation  to  existing  prejudices; 
they  may  have  had  their  origin  and  become  common 
from  arguments  used  in  books.  To  meet  this,  he 
appeals  to  the  nature  of  language.  A  word  is  but  an 
embodiment  of  a  thought :  thoughts  are  the  offspring 
of  the  soul ;  words  existed  long  before  books  ;  before 
the  cultivated  poet  or  philosopher  came  the  rude  and 
simple  man.  We  have  then  to  search  for  the  origin 
of  such  expressions  in  the  nature  of  man,  who  found 
need  for  them  as  expressing  some  deep  feeling  within 
him,  or  some  truth  which  had  been  revealed  to  him 
from  the  beginning.  If,  indeed,  the  soul  has  taken 
them  from  writings  at  all,  it  must  have  done  so  from 
the  earlier  and  not  later  ones,  and  the  Scriptures 
of  God  are  much  more  ancient  than  any  secular 
literature. 

And  so  Tertullian  calls  upon  the  heathen  to  give 
credence  to  the  witness  of  the  soul.  He  asks  them 
to  consider  how  it  is  it  uses  Christian  phrases, 
though  it  hates  Christians.  From  the  whole  wide 
world  its  testimony  comes.  “There  is  not  a  soul 
of  man  that  does  not,”  he  says,  ‘  from  the  light  that 

N 


178  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

is  in  itself,  proclaim  the  very  things  we  are  not  per¬ 
mitted  to  speak  above  our  breath.  Most  justly,  then, 
every  soul  is  a  culprit  as  well  as  a  witness.  In  the 
measure  that  it  testifies  for  truth,  the  guilt  of  error 
lies  on  it.  On  the  day  of  judgment  it  will  stand 
before  the  courts  of  God  without  a  word  to  say. 
Thou  proclaimest  God,  O  soul,  but  thou  didst  not 
seek  to  know  Him.  Evil  spirits  were  detested  by 
thee,  and  yet  they  were  the  objects  of  thy  adoration  ; 
the  punishments  of  hell  were  foreseen  by  thee,  but 
no  care  was  taken  to  avoid  them ;  thou  hadst  a 
savour  of  Christianity,  and  withal  wert  the  persecutor 
of  Christians.” 


MINUCIUS  FELIX.  200-2 50  A.D.  CIRCA. 

The  Octavius  of  Minucius  Felix  is  a  lively  and 
elegant  Apology  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  between  a 
Christian,  Octavius  (whence  its  name),  and  a  heathen, 
Coecilius.  It  is  remarkable  for  giving  a  clear  and 
complete  picture  of  the  Christians  and  their  religion 
as  they  appeared  in  the  eyes  of  the  heathen  world. 
In  the  introduction  Minucius  describes  Octavius,  then 
dead,  as  his  most  intimate  friend.  “  He  had  been,” 
he  says,  “  my  confidant  in  my  love  affairs,  and  my 
companion  in  my  mistakes.  When  I  emerged  from 
the  abyss  of  darkness  into  the  light  of  wisdom  and  truth, 
he  did  not  cast  me  off,  but, — what  is  more  glorious, — 
he  outstripped  me.”  The  scene  (so  to  speak)  of  the 
dialogue  is  laid  as  follows :  On  one  occasion  Octavius 
had  come  to  Rome  during  the  vacation  time  to  visit 


0 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  1 79 

Minucius.  Along  with  Ccecilius,  a  constant  com¬ 
panion  of  the  latter,  they  had  gone  to  Ostia  to  take 
the  mineral  baths.  Early  one  morning  they  were  all 
walking  together  along  the  banks  of  the  Tiber  close 
to  its  mouth,  and  enjoying  the  gently-breathing  air 
and  soft  yielding  sand.  Coecilius  perceived  an  image 
of  the  Egyptian  god  Serapis,  and  following  the  custom 
of  the  superstitious  common  people,  he  raised  his 
hand  to  his  mouth  and  kissed  it.  At  once  Octavius 
reproved  Minucius  for  suffering  his  friend  to  remain 
in  the  darkness  of  idolatry.  It  was  not  the  part  of 
a  good  man  so  to  do.  The  error  of  his  friend  was 
reflected  upon  himself.  At  the  moment  nothing  more 
seems  to  have  been  said  on  the  subject.  They  have 
now  come  to  the  sea-shore,  and  they  walk  along  the 
beach.  “  There  the  gently  rippling  wave  was  smooth¬ 
ing  the  outside  sands,  as  if  it  would  level  them  for  a 
promenade ;  and  as  the  sea  is  always  restless  even 
when  the  winds  are  lulled,  it  came  up  on  the  shore, 
although  not  with  waves  crested  and  foaming,  yet  with 
waves  crisped  and  curling.  Just  then  we  were  exces¬ 
sively  delighted  at  its  vagaries,  as  on  the  very  thresh¬ 
old  of  the  water  we  were  wetting  the  soles  of  our 
feet,  and  now  the  wave  broke  over  them,  and  then 
retiring  sucked  itself  to  itself.”  As  they  walked  along, 
Octavius  beguiled  the  way  with  stories  of  navigation. 
On  their  return  they  came  to  a  place  where  boats  were 
lying  on  wooden  slips,  and  they  saw  some  boys  eagerly 
gesticulating  as  they  played  at  throwing  shells  into 
the  sea.  “This  play  is;  to  choose  a  shell  from  the 
shore,  rubbed  and  made  smooth  by  the  tossing  of  the 
waves ;  to  take  hold  of  the  shell  in  a  horizontal  posi- 

N  2 


i8o 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


tion  with  the  fingers  ;  to  whirl  it  along  sloping  and  as 
low  down  as  possible  on  the  waves,  that  when  thrown 
it  may  either  skim  the  back  of  the  wave,  or  may  swim 
as  it  glides  along  with  a  smooth  impulse,  or  may 
spring  up  as  it  cleaves  the  top  of  the  waves,  and  rise 
as  if  lifted  up  with  repeated  springs.  That  boy 
claimed  to  be  conqueror  whose  shell  both  went  out 
furthest  and  leaped  up  most  frequently.”1 

All  this  while  Ccecilius  was  silent  and  sulky,  and 
Minucius  asks,  “  What  is  the  matter  ?  Why  are  you 
not  so  lively  as  usual?”  The  answer  is,  that  he  is 
nettled  at  Octavius’  speech  and  indirect  imputation 
of  folly,  and  is  anxious  for  an  argument  with  him. 
He  suggests  that  they  seat  themselves  on  the  rocky 
barriers  that  are  placed  for  the  protection  of  the  baths, 
and  argue  there.  The  suggestion  is  carried  out,  Minu¬ 
cius  is  placed  in  the  middle  as  arbiter,  and  Ccecilius 
begins. 

After  reminding  Minucius  that,  though  a  Christian, 
he  as  judge  must  hold  the  balance  even,  he  begins  by 
remarking  that  there  is  no  difficulty  in  making  plain 
that  all  human  affairs  are  doubtful,  uncertain,  and 
unsettled,  and  that  all  things  are  rather  probable  than 
true.  Such  being  the  case,  all  men  must  be  indignant 
that  certain  persons,  and  these  unskilled  in  learning, 
and  strangers  to  literature,  and  without  knowledge  of 
the  common  arts,  should  dare  to  determine  with  cer¬ 
tainty  matters  on  which  different  religions  differed, 
and  on  which  philosophy  still  deliberated.  When  you 
examine  Creation,  you  cannot  find  its  origin.  When 
you  observe  events  in  the  world,  you  can  find  no 
1  An  ancient  description  of  the  English  “duck  and  drake.” 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  l8l 

order  or  discrimination,  and  no  distinction  between 
the  good  and  the  bad.  Fortune  unrestrained  by  laws 
seems  to  be  ruling  over  us.  Under  these  circumstances 
it  is  better  to  receive  the  teaching  of  our  ancestors, 
and  to  assert  no  opinion  about  the  gods.  Each 
people  has  its  national  rites  of  worship,  and  adores 
its  local  gods.  The  Romans,  adoring  all  divinities, 
have  conquered  all  nations.  Their  wars  have  always 
been  religious.  When  conquered  at  home,  they  still 
worshipped  the  gods  who  had  not  taken  care  of 
them ;  when  conquerors  abroad,  they  venerated  the 
conquered  deities.  In  all  directions  they  seek  for 
the  gods  of  the  strangers  and  make  them  their  own. 
Experience  has  shown  that  this  devotion  is  expedient. 
This  attention  to  religion  has  given  prosperity.  Ne¬ 
glected  auguries  have  brought  with  them  disaster. 
The  philosophers  are  not,  therefore,  to  be  lis¬ 
tened  to  when  they  strive  to  undermine  a  religion 
so  ancient,  so  useful,  and  so  wholesome.  Much  less 
is  it  to  be  tolerated  that  men  of  a  reprobate,  and 
unlawful,  and  desperate  faction,  gathered  from  the 
lowest  dregs  of  the  people,  leagued  together  by 
nightly  meetings  and  inhuman  rites,  a  people  skulk¬ 
ing  and  shunning  the  light,  should  rage  against  the 
gods.  This  wicked  confederacy  grows  daily,  and 
assuredly  ought  to  be  rooted  out  and  execrated.  Its 
worship  is  secret,  by  report  abominable,  certainly 
suspicious.  Unless  it  was  vile,  why  do  its  followers 
conceal  it  so  carefully  ?  Why  have  they  no  altars,  no 
temples  or  acknowledged  images. 

Proceeding  to  discuss  Christian  doctrines,  The 
Providence  of  God  extending  over  each  and  all,  The 


2  82 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


destruction  by  fire  of  the  eternal  order  constituted  by 
the  Divine  laws  of  nature,  The  resurrection  of  the 
body  after  it  has  been  resolved  into  dust,  are  marked 
out  by  Coecilius  as  specially  foolish.  He  argues  that 
the  present  condition  of  the  Christians  is  a  sufficient 
proof  of  the  vanity  of  their  hopes.  The  greater  part 
of  them  are  in  want  and  cold,  and  their  God  suffers 
it.  Why  ?  Because  he  is  either  unwilling  or  unable 
to  assist  his  people.  Those  who  dream  of  immortality 
are  shaken  by  danger,  consumed  by  fever,  and  torn 
by  pain.  Yes,  and  they  have  special  troubles.  For 
them  were  threats,  punishments,  fines,  and  crosses  not 
for  adoration,1  but  for  torture.  Who  was  that  God 
who  was  able  to  bring  them  to  life  again,  when  He 
was  unable  to  help  them  whilst  in  life  ?  Of  all  men 
they  were  the  most  miserable  in  life,  and  there  was 
nothing  beyond.  Cease,  Coecilius  exhorts  them  in 
conclusion,  to  pry  into  the  regions  of  the  sky.  All 
matters  relating  to  the  gods  are  uncertain,  and  had 
far  better  be  left  as  we  find  them.  And  now  Coecilius 
has  talked  himself  out  of  his  temper,  and  exults  in  the 
prospect  of  a  decided  victory;  but  Minucius  asks  him 
to  restrain  his  self-approval  till  he  has  heard  the  other 
side. 

Octavius,  in  his  reply,  first  remarks  on  the  doubtful 
position  of  his  opponent,  at  one  time  believing  the 
gods,  at  another  quite  doubtful  on  the  subject.  He 
answers  the  objection  brought  against  the  Christians 
as  illiterate,  poor,  unskilled  people,  by  remarking  that 
wisdom  is  not  obtained  by  wealth,  but  implanted  by 

1  For  tlie  allusion  here,  see  page  47 ;  Octavius  replies, 
1  Crosses  we  neither  worship  nor  wish  for.” 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  183 

nature.  It  is  quite  true  that  man  ought  to  know 
himself,  and  should  study  the  works  of  nature. 
But  when  you  lift  up  your  eyes  to  heaven,  and  look 
into  the  things  below  and  around,  what  can  possibly 
be  more  evident  than  that  there  is  some  God  of  most 
excellent  intelligence  by  whom  all  nature  is  inspired, 
moved,  nourished,  and  governed  ?  The  movements  of 
the  stars  in  the  heavens,  and  the  order  of  the  seasons 
upon  earth,  the  ebbs  and  flows  of  the  tides,  and  the 
perpetual  flowing  of  the  fountains  and  rivers,  the 
,  varied  faculties  of-  the  animals,  and,  above  all,  men, 
with  their  body  of  upright  stature,  and  many  members 
all  beautiful  and  necessary,  all  having  the  same 
general  form,  and  yet  so  unlike  in  special  features, — 
all  these  need  a  Supreme  Artificer  and  perfect  Intelli¬ 
gence  to  create,  to  fashion,  and  to  arrange  them. 

Proceeding  to  show  that  God’s  care  is  manifestly 
exerted,  not  only  over  the  whole  universe,  but  over 
its  several  parts,  he  makes  a  remark  specially  inter¬ 
esting  to  us  :  Britain,”  he  says,  “  is  deficient  in  sun¬ 
shine,  but  is  refreshed  by  the  warmth  of  the  sea  that 
flows  around  it.”  The  house  of  the  world,  he  argues, 
being  thus  beautiful  and  well-ordered,  the  Lord  of 
the  house  must  be  far  greater  and  more  glorious. 
The  analogy  of  the  history  of  the  world  shows  that 
that  Lord  is  one ;  the  authority  of  the  Divine  empire 
cannot  be  sundered.  Such  is  God’s  greatness  that  He 
is  incomprehensible,  and  so  a  name  cannot  be  given 
Him.  Nor  is  this  necessary.  Being  unique,  He  needs 
not  to  be  distinguished  from  others  by  a  name.  All 
these  truths  are  confirmed  by  the  discourse  of  the 
common  people,  and  the  testimonies  of  poets  and  the 


184  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

wisest  philosophers.  Why,  then,  should  men  be  carried 
away  by  the  errors  of  their  credulous  ancestors  ? 

Going  into  detail,  Octavius  shows  the  human  origin 
of  the  gods,  the  ridiculous  and  corrupting  character 
of  their  history  and  their  rites  of  worship.  He  dis¬ 
sociates  Roman  prosperity  from  Roman  religion.  He 
shows  that  the  oracles  were  unreliable,  and  traces 
their  power  to  the  demons.  He  claims  that  the 
demons  are  subject  to  the  powers  of  the  Christians. 
He  rebuts  the  accusations  of  immorality  and  un¬ 
worthy  and  infamous  objects  of  worship  ;  and  he  con¬ 
trasts  the  lives  of  Christians  with  those  of  heathens. 

Not  by  a  small  bodily  mark,  as  Ccecilius  had  sup¬ 
posed,  are  Christians  distinguished,  but  very  plainly 
by  the  sign  of  innocency  and  modesty.  They  love 
one  another,  because  they  do  not  know  how  to  hate. 
They  call  one  another  brethren,  because  they  are 
born  of  one  God  and  Parent,  because  they  are  com¬ 
panions  in  faith,  and  co-heirs  in  hope. 

Nor  again  is  it  for  purposes  of  concealment  that  they 
have  no  temples,  and  altars,  and  images.  Image  of  God 
there  can  be  none,  except  man.  Temple  of  God  cannot 
be  built,  since  the  world  itself  cannot  contain  Him.  The 
sacrifices  to  be  offered  to  God  are  not  sheep  and 
cattle — His  own  gift  to  men  ;  but  a  good  soul,  and  a 
pure  mind,  and  a  sincere  judgment.  Certainly  the 
God  whom  Christians  worship,  they  can  neither  show 
nor  see.  We  cannot  even  look  upon  or  into  His  works, 
how  then  can  we  look  upon  Himself?  And  yet  He 
is  not  far  away  and  ignorant  of  men’s  doings.  All 
things  are  full  of  Him.  We  live  under  His  eyes,  and 
even  in  His  bosom. 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  1 85 

After  showing  the  possibility  of  a  dissolution 
of  all  things,  and  adducing  the  argument  from 
analogy  which  nature  gives  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
resurrection,  he  points  out  that  God  permits  suf¬ 
fering  as  a  trial  and  discipline.  God’s  soldier  is 
neither  forsaken  in  suffering,  nor  brought  to  an  end 
by  death.  The  Christian  may  seem  to  be  miserable, 
but  is  not  really  so.  Those  only  are  truly  wretched 
who  know  not  God.  Apart  from  the  knowledge  of 
God,  what  solid  happiness  can  there  be,  since  death 
must  come?  Like  a  dream,  happiness  slips  away 
before  it  is  grasped.  The  Christians  use  this  world 
as  not  abusing  it,  and  have  their  innocent  enjoyments 
here ;  but  they  live  in  contemplation  of  the  future, 
and  are  animated  by  the  hope  of  future  happiness. 

When  Octavius  ceases  to  speak  there  is  silence  for 
a  time,  and  then  Ccecilius  breaks  forth  :  “  I  do  not 
wait  for  the  decision.  We  are  both  conquerors ; 
Octavius  has  conquered  me,  and  I  have  conquered 
error.  I  yield  to  God.  I  have  many  questions  yet 
to  ask,  not  in  a  spirit  of  doubt  but  of  inquiry.” 

After  a  few  words  from  Minucius,  all  separate,  glad 
and  cheerful.  Caecilius,  to  rejoice  that  he  had  be¬ 
lieved;  Octavius,  to  rejoice  that  he  had  conquered  ; 
and  Minucius,  the  friend  of  both,  to  rejoice  for  both 
reasons  alike. 


CYPRIAN.  200-258  A.D. 

Cyprian’s  life  was  momentous  in  its  issues,  but  his 
Apologetic  treatises  are  short,  and  of  no  great  im- 


1 86 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  1  UTH. 


portance,  and  are,  in  part,  derived  from  the  writings 
of  former  Apologists.  His  address  to  Demetrian, 
proconsul  of  Africa,  contains  a  remarkable  description 
of  the  sufferings  the  Christians  had  to  endure  :  “You 
deprive,"  he  says,  “  the  innocent,  the  just,  the  dear 
to  God,  of  their  home;  you  spoil  them  of  their  estate, 
you  load  them  with  chains,  you  shut  them  up  in 
prison,  you  punish  them  with  the  sword,  with  the 
wild  beasts,  with  the  flames.  Nor,  indeed,  are  you 
content  that  we  should  have  a  brief  endurance  of 
suffering,  and  a  simple  and  swift  exhaustion  of  pains. 
You  set  on  foot  tedious  tortures,  by  tearing  our 
bodies  ;  you  multiply  numerous  punishments,  by 
lacerating  our  vitals ;  nor  can  your  brutality  and 
fierceness  be  content  with  ordinary  tortures.  Your 
ingenious  cruelty  devises  new  sufferings.  Why,"  he 
asks,  “do  you  turn  your  attention  to  the  weakness 
of  our  body  ?  Why  do ,  you  strive  with  the  feeble¬ 
ness  of  this  earthly  flesh?  Contend  rather  with  the 
strength  of  the  mind ;  break  down  the  power  of  the 
soul ;  destroy  our  faith ;  conquer,  if  you  can,  by 
discussion ;  overcome  by  reason ;  or,  if  your  gods  have 
any  deity  and  power,  let  them  themselves  rise  to  their 
own  vindication,  let  them  defend  themselves  by  their 
own  majesty."  He  goes  on  to  show  that  the  heathen 
gods  are  all  unable  to  protect  themselves.  They  are 
the  demons  whom  the  Christians  cast  out.  “Oh, 
would  you  but  hear  and  see  them  when  they  are 
adjured  by  us,  and  are  tortured  with  spiritual  scourges, 
and  are  ejected  from  the  possessed  bodies  with  tor¬ 
ture  of  words,  when,  howling  and  groaning  at  the 
voice  of  man  and  the  power  of  God,  feeling  the 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS.  1 87 

stripes  and  blows,  they  confess  the  judgment  to 
come  !  Come  and  acknowledge  that  what  we  say 
is  true ;  and  since  you  say  that  you  thus  worship 
gods,  believe  even  those  whom  you  worship ;  or,  if 
you  will  even  believe  yourself,  he  (i.e.  the  demon) 
who  has  now  possessed  your  breast,  who  has  now 
darkened  your  mind  with  the  night  of  ignorance, 
shall  speak  concerning  yourself  in  your  hearing ;  you 
will  see  that  we  are  entreated  by  those  whom  you 
entreat,  that  we  are  feared  by  those  whom  you  fear, 
and  whom  you  adore ;  you  will  see  that  under  our 
hands  they  stand  bound  and  tremble  as  captives, 
whom  you  look  up  to  and  venerate  as  lords ;  as¬ 
suredly,  even  thus  you  might  be  confounded  in  those 
errors  of  yours,  when  you  see  and  hear  gods,  at  once, 
upon  our  interrogation,  betraying  what  they  are,  and 
even  in  your  presence  unable  to  conceal  these  de¬ 
ceits  and  trickeries  of  theirs.” 

The  claim  which  Cyprian  here  makes  is  a  very 
remarkable  one ;  and  he  is  not  alone  in  making  it. 
Every  Apologist,  with  one  exception  (Clement  of 
Alexandria),  asserts  that  the  power  of  casting  out 
devils  was  a  power  continuing  in,  and  being  con¬ 
stantly  exercised  by,  the  Christian  Church.  Ter- 
tullian  is  quite  ready  to  rest  the  Christian  cause  on 
the  result  of  the  encounter  of  any  Christian  with  any 
demoniac. 


DEFENDERS  Of  THE  FAITH. 


1 88 


ARNOBIUS.  300  A.D.  CIRCA. 

Arnobius’s  Apology  is  of  great  value.  His  rhetorical 
power  was  great.  He  wrote .  from  the  standpoint  of 
an  unbeliever,  for  he  was  not  yet  admitted  into  the 
Christian  Church,  and  was  evidently  still  ignorant  of 
many  of  her  doctrines.1  A  professor  of  rhetoric  at 
Sicca,  in  Africa,  he  had  been  active  in  his  attacks  on 
Christianity,  and  devoted  in  his  worship  of  images. 
When  he  wished  to  become  a  Christian  (led  by 
visions,  Jerome  tells  us),  his  sincerity  was  at  first  sus¬ 
pected,  and  he  composed  his  Apology  as  a  pledge  of 
his  good  faith.  Amongst  all  the  Apologists  he  is 
able  most  clearly  to  distinguish  the  Christian  and 
the  heathen  miracles.  His  exposure  of  heathenism 
contains  passages  of  scathing,  though  somewhat  too 
redundant,  eloquence.  Many  of  these  have  been 
already  quoted  in  a  compressed  form. 

Inasmuch  as  Christianity  was  well  known  when 
Arnobius  wrote,  he  naturally  touches  on  matters 
which  had  not  been  noticed  by  former  Apologists. 
The  writings  of  the  New  Testament  were  in  heathen 
hands,  and  they  were  objected  to  as  containing  bar¬ 
barisms  and  solecisms.  Arnobius  asks  how  the  truth 
of  the  substance  is  affected  by  the  roughness  of  the 
form.  The  Christians  discuss  matters  far  removed 
from  mere  display ;  and  they  consider  how  they  may 
benefit  their  hearers,  not  how  they  may  tickle  their 
ears. 

He  discusses  at  great  length  the  nature  of  the 
soul.  He  denies  that  it  is  immortal,  or  that  it  comes 
1  Jerome,  Cat.  Script.  Ecc.,  Arn.  i.  39. 


THE  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


189 


direct  from  God.  If  it  were  born  of  God,  men’s 
lives  would  be  pure,  and  their  beliefs  one  and  the 
same.  He  thinks  that  naturally  a  man  does  not 
differ  in  kind  from  the  animals.  He  suggests  an 
experiment  to  prove  his  point.  He  supposes  an 
infant  brought  up  in  a  place  where  no  sound  or  cry, 
no  beast  or  bird,  no  storm  or  man,  ever  comes.  He 
is  to  be  tended  by  a  dumb  nurse,  and  to  be  fed  on 
an  invariable  vegetable  diet.  He  is  to  drink  no  wine, 
but  only  water  from  the  spring.  Thus  he  is  to  pass 
his  life  for  twenty  or  thirty  years,  and  then  he  is  to 
be  brought  into  the  assemblies  of  men  and  questioned 
who  and  what  he  is.  Will  he  not  stand  speechless, 
with  less  wit  and  sense  than  any  beast,  ignorant  of 
the  names  and  natures  of  the  things  offered  to  him  ? 
Arnobius  thinks  that  you  have  here  a  man  in  his 
natural  condition,  and  that  his  utter  ignorance  shows 
that  his  soul  cannot  have  a  divine  origin.  Of  course, 
the  fallacy  of  his  argument  lies  here,  that  faculties,  if 
uneducated  and  undeveloped,  are  wholly  lost.  Arno¬ 
bius  took  care  to  preserve  the  bodily  life  of  his  infant 
with  food,  he  left  the  soul  unprovided  with  food,  and 
it  necessarily  perished. 

In  his  seventh  book  he  has  an  elaborate  argument 
against  material  sacrifices.  He  wants  to  know  for 
what  reason  they  are  offered.  Are  the  gods  of 
heaven  nourished  by  them  ?  Surely  not,  since  they 
are  immortal.  Moreover,  the  substance  of  the  sacri¬ 
fice  is  not  consumed  by  them,  but  by  fire.  What 
pleasure  can  the  gods  above  take  in  the  slaughter  of 
harmless  creatures?  Even  we,  half  savage  men,  take 
some  pity  when  we  see  the  victims  bleeding.  They 


IQO 


DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 


are  offered,  men  say,  that  the  gods  may  lay  aside 
their  anger.  But  can  passion  be  felt  by  the  Deity  ? 
If  it  can,  why  should  the  killing  of  a  pig,  or  the  con¬ 
suming  of  a  pullet,  or  the  blood  of  a  goose,  or  a  goat, 
or  a  peacock,  bring  them  relief?  Are  the  gods  like 
little  boys,  who  give  up  their  fits  of  passion  when  gifts 
of  sparrows,  or  dolls,  or  ponies,  are  made  to  them  ? 
Then  again,  why  should  the  burden  of  men’s  sins  be 
cast  on  the  innocent  animals?  He  pictures  an  ox 
addressing  Jupiter,  and  saying,  that  he  had  never 
done  him  wrong,  or  celebrated  his  games  irreverently, 
or  polluted  his  sacred  groves.  Man  was  the  cause  of 
all  wickedness,  why  then  should  he  (an  ox)  be  slain 
to  soothe  the  divine  anger?  Again,  Arnobius  objects, 
does  not  experience  show  that  the  sacrifices  are  of 
no  avail  for  procuring  benefits  ?  Is  it  not  dishonour¬ 
ing  to  the  gods  to  suppose  that  their  gifts  are  an  object 
of  sale,  to  be  purchased  by  rich  scoundrels,  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  pious  if  poor?  The  gods,  though 
not  benefited,  are  honoured  by  the  sacrifices,  it  is 
said.  What !  honoured  by  that  foul  smell  which  is 
emitted  by  burning  hides,  by  bones,  by  bristles,  by 
the  fleeces  of  lambs,  and  the  feathers  of  fowls  ! 
What  kind  of  honour  is  it  to  invite  a  god  to  a  banquet 
of  blood,  which  he  shares  with  dogs  ?  What  kind 
of  honour  is  it  to  set  on  fire  piles  of  wood,  to  hide 
the  heavens  with  smoke,  to  darken  with  gloomy 
blackness  the  images  of  the  gods  ?  If  dogs  and 
asses,  and  swallows,  and  pigs  were  to  offer  sacrifices 
to  you,  how  would  you  like  it?  Supposing  the 
swallows  consecrated  flies  to  you,  and  the  asses  put 
hay  upon  your  altars  and  poured  out  libations  of 


Till.  LATIN  APOLOGISTS. 


I9I 


chaff;  supposing  that  the  dogs  placed  bones  on  your 
altars,  and  the  pigs  poured  out  a  horrid  mess  from 
their  troughs,  would  you  not  be  inflamed  with  rage? 
And  then  your  sacrificial  laws  by  which  you  offer 
different  animals  to  different  gods,  how  destitute  of 
reason  are  they  ?  Why  do  you  offer  a  bull’s  blood 
to  Jupiter,  and  a  goat  to  Bacchus,  and  a  barren  heifer 
to  Proserpine  ?  da  similar  manner  he  exposes  the 
folly  of  offering  wine  to  the  gods,  as  if  they  could 
be  thirsty,  and  he  shows  how  utterly  impossible  it  is 
that  they  can  take  delight  in  the  shameless  games 
which  are  celebrated  in  their  honour.  He  traces  all 
these  vicious  opinions  to  this  cause  : — Men  were 
unable  to  know  what  God  is,  they  were  unable  to 
discern  Him  by  the  power  of  reason,  and  so  they 
fashioned  gods  for  themselves  and  like  themselves. 


LACTANTIUS.  250-325  A.D. 

Lactantius’s  ‘  Divine  Institutions  ’  was  written  when 
persecution  had  ceased.  In  the  latter  part  of  his 
work  he  goes  quite  beyond  the  Apologetic  limits. 
His  object  was  a  very  ambitious  one.  It  was  so  to 
plead  the  Christian  cause,  as  not  only  to  overthrow 
former  writers  against  it  with  all  their  writings,  but 
also  to  cut  off  fro:  future  writers  the  whole  power  of 
writing  and  of  replying.  With  one  blow  he  hopes  to 
overthrow  all  ac<  sers  of  righteousness.  He  only 
asks  for  attention  v.  4),  and  then  he  will  assuredly 
effect  that  man  m  1st  either  embrace  Christian  doc¬ 
trine,  or  at  least  cease  to  deride  it.  He  compares 


I92  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

his  work  with  that  of  other  Apologists.  Tertullian 
sought  only  to  answer  accusers,  he  seeks  to  instruct. 
Cyprian  did  not  handle  his  subject  as  he  ought,  for 
he  endeavoured  to  refute  his  adversaries  by  testimo¬ 
nies  from  Scripture  which  they  did  not  admit,  instead 
of  by  arguments  and  reason  (v.  4).  He  intends  to 
use  the  testimonies  of  philosophers  and  historians. 
There  have  been  wanting  amongst  us,  he  says  (v.  1), 
suitable  and  skilful  teachers,  who  might  vigorously 
and  sharply  refute  public  errors,  and  who  might 
defend  the  whole  cause  of  truth  with  elegance  and 
copiousness.  Tertullian  had  little  readiness  of  speech, 
was  not  sufficiently  polished,  and  was  very  obscure. 
He  undertakes  to  plead  the  cause  of  truth  with  dis¬ 
tinctness  and  elegance  of  speech,  in  order  that  it  may 
flow  with  greater  power  into  the  minds  of  men,  being 
both  provided  with  its  own  force,  and  adorned  with 
brilliancy  of  speech  (i.  1). 

If  we  had  no  other  evidence  than  this  criticism  of 
former  Apologists,  and  this  self-complacent  applica¬ 
tion  of  his  own  powers,  we  should,  I  think,  be  justi¬ 
fied  in  assuming  that  the  Apologetic  period  had  nearly 
come  to  an  end,  and  that  Christians  were  no  longer 
struggling  for  existence.  Lactantius  falls  into  some 
of  the  errors  which  he  points  out  in  others.  If  he  is 
more  eloquent,  he  is  less  forcible  than  some  of  those 
who  had  gone  before.  The  most  interesting  part  of 
his  work  is  his  refutation  of  Philosophy.  He  has  a 
clear  idea  of  the  nature  and  causes  of  its  failure,  and 
he  does  not  refuse  to  give  it  credit  for  that  which  it 
had  been  able  to  achieve.  His  work  is  not  a  defence 
of  Christians  from  accusations ;  he  defends  them, 


CONCLUSION. 


193 


indeed,  from  the  charge  of  foolishness,  but  does  not 
refer  to  any  charges  of  immorality  or  impiety. 
Christianity  was  much  better  known  than  in  the  first 
Apologists’  time.  The  ground  was  cleared  for  a  work 
like  the  ‘  Divine  Institutions,’  which  should  discuss  in 
greater  detail  the  nature  and  evidence  of  a  religion 
which  had,  single-handed,  fought  a  battle  against 
the  Roman  State,  and  won  a  complete  victory. 

CONCLUSION. 

And  now  our  task  is  complete.  We  cannot  sum 
up  our  results  better  than  in  the  noble  words  of  an 
unknown  Apologist.1 

“  The  Christians  are  distinguished  from  other  men, 
neither  by  country,  nor  language,  nor  the  customs 
which  they  observe.  For  they  neither  inhabit  cities 
of  their  own,  nor  employ  a  peculiar  form  of  speech, 
nor  lead  a  life  which  is  marked  out  by  any  singularity. 
Their  course  of  conduct  has  not  been  devised  by  any 
speculation  of  inquisitive  men ;  nor  do  they  proclaim 
themselves  the  advocates,  of  any  merely  human  doc¬ 
trine.  Inhabiting,  as  lot  may  determine,  Greek  as 
well  as  barbarian  cities,  following  the  customs  of  the 
natives  with  respect  to  clothing,  food,  and  other 
matters,  they  display  to  us  their  wonderful  and  con¬ 
fessedly  paradoxical  mode  of  life.  They  dwell  in 
their  own  countries,  but  simply  as  sojourners.  As 
citizens,  they  share  all  things  with  others,  and  yet 
endure  all  things  as  aliens.  Every  foreign  land  is  to 
them  as  their  native  country,  and  every  land  of  their 
1  Author  of  Epistle  to  Diognetus,  c.  5,  6. 

o 


194  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

birth  as  a  land  of  strangers.  They  marry,  as  do  all 
others,  and  beget  children,  but  they  do  not  destroy 
their  offspring.  They  have  a  common  table,  but  not 
an  impure  one.  They  are  in  the  flesh,  but  they  do 
not  live  after  the  flesh.  They  pass  their  days  on 
earth,  but  they  are  citizens  of  heaven.  They  obey 
the  prescribed  laws,  and  at  the  same  time  surpass  the 
laws  by  their  lives.  They  love  all  men,  and  are 
persecuted  by  all.  They  are  unknown  and  con¬ 
demned  ;  they  are  put  to  death,  and  restored  to  life. 
They  are  poor,  yet  make  many  rich ;  they  are  in  lack 
of  all  things,  and  yet  abound  in  all ;  they  are  disho¬ 
noured,  and  yet  in  their  very  dishonour  are  glorified. 
They  are  evil  spoken  of,  and  yet  are  justified  ;  they 
are  reviled,  and  bless  ;  they  are  insulted,  and  repay 
the  insult  with  honour ;  they  do  good,  yet  are  punished 
as  evil-doers.  When  punished,  they  rejoice  as  if 
quickened  into  life.  They  are  assailed  by  the  Jews 
as  foreigners,  and  are  persecuted  by  the  Greeks ;  and 
yet  those  who  hate  them  are  unable  to  assign  any 
reason  for  their  hatred.  To  sum  up  all  in  one  word ; 
what  the  soul  is  in  the  body,  that  are  the  Christians 
iu  the  world.  The  soul  is  dispersed  through  all  the 
members  of  the  body,  and  Christians  are  dispersed 
through  all  the  cities  of  the  world.  The  soul  dwells 
in  the  body,  yet  is  not  of  the  body ;  and  Christians 
dwell  in  the  world,  yet  are  not  of  the  world.  The 
invisible  soul  is  guarded  by  the  visible  body;  and 
Christians  are  indeed  known  to  be  in  the  world,  but 
their  godliness  remains  invisible.  The  flesh  hates 
the  soul,  and  wars  against  it,  though  itself  suffering 
no  injury,  because  it  is  prevented  from  enjoying 


CONCLUSION. 


195 


pleasures.  The  world,  also,  hates  the  Christians, 
though  in  no  wise  injured,  because  they  abjure  plea¬ 
sures.  The  soul  loves  the  flesh  that  hates  it,  and 
loves  also  the  members ;  Christians  likewise  love 
those  that  hate  them.  The  soul  is  imprisoned  in  the 
body,  yet  preserves  that  very  body;  and  Christians 
are  confined  in  the  world  as  in  a  prison,  and  yet  they 
are  the  preservers  of  the  world.  The  immortal  soul 
dwells  in  a  mortal  tabernacle ;  and  Christians  dwell 
as  sojourners  in  corruptible  bodies,  looking  for  an 
incorruptible  dwelling  in  the  heavens.  The  soul, 
when  but  ill  provided  with  food  and  drink,  becomes 
better ;  in  like  manner,  the  Christians,  though  sub¬ 
jected  day  by  day  to  punishment,  increase  the  more 
in  number.  God  has  assigned  them  this  illustrious 
position,  which  it  were  unlawful  for  them  to  forsake.  ” 
How  had  all  this  come  to  pass?  No  mere  “earthly 
invention  ”  or  “  human  system  of  opinion  ”  had  been 
committed  to  them,  but  truly  “God  Himself  had  sent 
from  heaven  and  placed  among  men,  Him  who  is  the 
Truth,  and  the  holy  and  incomprehensible  Word,  and 
had  firmly  established  Him  in  their  hearts.  He  did 
not,  as  might  have  been  supposed,  send  to  men  any 
servant,  or  angel,  or  ruler  in  heaven  or  earth,  but  the 
very  Creator  and  Fashioner  of  all  things.  Did  He 
send  Him  for  the  purpose  of  exercising  tyranny,  or 
inspiring  fear  ?  By  no  means ;  but  in  clemency  and 
meekness.  As  the  king  sends  his  son,  so  sent  He 
Him.  As  God,  He  sent  Him ;  as  to  men,  He  sent 
Him  :  as  a  Saviour,  He  sent  Him.  As  calling  us, 
not  vengefully  pursuing  us,  as  loving  us,  not  judging 
us,  He  sent  Him.  He  will  yet  send  Him  to  judge 


196  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH. 

us,  and  who  shall  endure  His  appearing?  Do  you  not 
see  (the  Christians)  exposed  to  wild  beasts,  that  they 
may  be  persuaded  to  deny  the  Lord,  and  yet  not 
overcome?  Do  you  not  see  that  the  more  of  them 
are  punished,  the  greater  becomes  the  number  of  the 
rest?  This  does  not  seem  to  be  the  work  of  men. 

This  is  the  power  of  God.” 


finis 


WYMAN  AND  SONS,  PRINTERS,  GREAT  QUEEN  STREET,  LONDON. 


PU  BLI  CATIONS 

OF  THE 

Society  for  Promoting  Christian  Knowledge. 


THE 

FATHERS  FOR  ENGLISH  READERS. 

A  Series  of  Monograms  on  the  Chief  Fathers  of  the  Church,  the 
Fathers  selected  being  centres  of  influence  at  important 
periods  of  Church  Histoiy,  and  in  important 
spheres  of  action. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  each. 

LEO  THE  GREAT. 

By  the  Rev.  CHARLES  GORE,  M. A. 

GREGORY  THE  GREAT. 

By  the  Rev.  J.  BARM  BY,  B.D. 

SAINT  AMBROSE  :  his  Life,  Times,  and  Teaching. 

By  the  Rev.  ROBINSON  THORNTON,  D.D. 

SAINT  AUGUSTINE. 

By  the  Rev.  E.  L.  CUTTS,  B.A. 

SAINT  BASIL  THE  GREAT. 

By  the  Rev.  RICHARD  T.  SMITH,  B.D. 

SAINT  HILARY  OF  POITIERS,  AND  SAINT  MARTIN  OF 

TOURS. 

By  the  Rev.  J.  GIBSON  CAZENOVE,  D.D. 

SAINT  JEROME. 

By  the  Rev.  EDWARD  L.  CUTTS,  B.A. 

SAINT  JOHN  OF  DAMASCUS. 

By  the  Rev.  J.  H.  LUPTON,  M.A. 

SYNESIUS  OF  CYRENE,  Philosopher  and  Bishop. 

By  ALICE  GARDNER. 

THE  APOSTOLIC  FATHERS. 

By  the  Rev.  H.  S.  HOLLAND. 

THE  DEFENDERS  OF  THE  FAITH  ;  or,  The  Christian  Apologists 
of  the  Second  and  Third  Centuries, 

By  the  Rev.  F.  WATSON,  M.A. 

THE  VENERABLE  BEDE. 

By  the  Rev.  G.  F.  BROWNE. 


2 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY 


NON-CHRISTIAN  RELIGIOUS  SYSTEMS. 

A  series  of  Manuals  which  furnish  in  a  brief  and  popular  form  an  accurate 
accomit  of  the  great  Non-C  h *  is  tian  Religious  Systems  of  the  World. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  6i.  each. 

Buddhism — Being  a  Sketch  of  the  Life  and  Teachings  of  Guatama, 
the  Buddha. 

By  T.  W.  Rhys  Davids.  With  Map. 

Buddhism  in  China. 

By  the  Rev.  S.  Beal.  With  Map. 

Confucianism  and  Taouism. 

By  Professor  Robert  K.  Douglas,  of  the  British  Museum.  With 
Map. 

Hinduism. 

By  Professor  Monier  Williams.  With  Map. 

Islam  and  its  Founder. 

By  J.  W.  H.  Stobart.  With  Map. 

The  Coran — Its  Composition  and  Teaching ,  and  the  Testimony  it  bears 
to  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

By  Sir  William  Muir,  K.C.S.I. 


THE  HEATHEN  WORLD  AND  ST.  PAUL. 


This  Series  is  intended  to  throw  light  upon  the  Writings  and  Labours  of  the 

Apostle  of  the  Gentiles. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  each. 

St.  Paul  in  Greece. 

By  the  Rev.  G.  S.  Davies.  With  Map. 

St.  Paul  in  Damascus  and  Arabia. 

By  the  Rev.  George  Rawlinson,  M.A. ,  Canon  of  Canterbury, 
With  Map. 

St.  Paul  at  Rome. 

Bv  the  Very  Rev.  Charles  Merivale,  D.D.,  D.C.L.,  Dean  of 
Ply.  With  Map. 

St.  Paul  in  Asia  M  'gior  and  at  the  Syrian  Antioch. 

By  the  Rev,  K.  H.  Plumptre,  D.D.  With  Map. 


FOR  PROMOTING  CHRISTIAN  KNOWLEDGE. 


3 


CHIEF  ANCIENT  PHILOSOPHIES. 

This  seies  of  books  deals  with  the  chief  systems  of  Ancient  Thought  not 
me'  ely  as  dry  matters  of  History ,  but  as  having  a  bearing  on  Modern 
Speculation. 

Fcap.  8vo,  cloth  hoards. 

Epicureanism.  By  Willhm  Wallace,  Esq.,  Fellow  and  Tutor  of 
Merton  College.  Oxford,  2 s  6d. 

Stoicism.  By  the  Rev.  W.  W.  Capes,  Fellow  of  Hertford  College,  &c., 
2 s.  6d. 

The  Ethics  0/ Aristotle.  By  the  Rev.  J.  Gregory  Smith,  M.A.,  is. 


DIOCESAN  HISTORIES. 

This  Series  furnishes  a  perfect  Library  of  English  Ecclesiastical  History. 
Each  volume  is  complete  in  itself,  and  the  possibility  of  repetition  has 
been  cai  efulLy  guarded  against. 

F  cap.  8vo,  cloth  hoards. 

Bath  and  Wells. 

By  the  Rev.  W.  Hunt.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

Canterbury. 

By  the  Rev.  R.  C.  Jenkins,  Hon.  Canon  of  Canterbury.  With 
Map,  3^.  6d. 

Chichester. 

By  the  Rev.  W.  R.  W.  Stephens.  With  Map  and  Plan,  2 s.  6d. 
Durham. 

By  the  Rev.  J.  L.  Low.  With  Map  and  Plan,  2 s.  6 d. 

Hereford. 

By  the  Rev.  Canon  Phillott.  With  Map,  3*. 

Lichfield. 

By  the  Rev.W.  Beresford.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

Norwich. 

By  the  Rev.  A.  Jessopp,  D.D.  With  Map,  2 5.  6 d. 

Oxford. 

By  the  Rev.  E.  Marshall.  Witli  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

Peterborough. 

By  the  Rev.  G.  A.  Poole,  M.A.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

Salisbury. 

By  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Jones.  With  Map  and  Plan,  2 s.  6 d. 

St.  Asaph 

By  the  Ven.  Archdeacon  Thomas.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

St.  Davids. 

By  the  Rev.  Canon  Bevan.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

Winchester. 

By  the  Rev,  W.  Benham,  B,D.  With  Map,.^. 

Worcester. 

By  the  Rev.  J.  Gregory  Smith,  M.A.,  and  the  Rev.  Phipps 
Onslow,  M  A  With  Map,  3s.  6 d. 

York. 

By  the  Rev.  Canon  Oknsby,  M.A.,  F.S.A.  With  Map,  3*.  6 d. 


4 


PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  SOCIETY. 


EARLY  BRITAIN. 

This  series  of  books  has  for  its  aim  the  presentation  of  Early  Britain  at  great 
histone  periods.  Each  volume  is  the  work  of  an  acc •  edit ed  special ist, 
and  the  whole  gives  the  result  of  the  most  r  cent  critical  examina¬ 
tions  of  our  Early  Records. 

Neap.  8vo,  cloth,  boards. 

Anglo-Saxon  Britain. 

By  Grant  Allen,  Esq.,  B.A.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 

Celtic  Britain. 

By  Professor  Rhys.  With  two  Maps,  3 s. 

Norman  Britain. 

By  the  Rev.  W.  Hunt.  With  Map,  2 s. 

Post-Norman  Britain. 

Foreign  Influences  upon  the  History  of  England,  from  the  Acces¬ 
sion  of  Henrv  III.  to  the  Revolution  of  1688.  By  Henry  G. 
Hewlett.  With  Map,  35. 

Roman  Britain. 

By  the  Rev.  Prebendary  Scarth.  With  Map,  2 s.  6d. 


ANCIENT  HISTORY  FROM  THE  MONUMENTS. 


This  Series  of  Books  is  chiefly  intended  to  illustrate  the  Sacred  Scriptures  by 
the  results  of  recent  Monumental  Researches  in  the  East. 

Pcap.  8vo,  cloth  boards,  2s.  each. 

Assyria ,  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  the  Fall  of  Nineveh. 

By  the  late  George  Smith,  Esq.,  of  the  British  Museum. 

Sinai  :  from  the  Fourth  Egyptian  Dynasty  to  the  Present  Day. 

By  Henry  S.  Palmer.  Major  R.E.,  F.R.A.S.  With  Map. 
Babylonia  (  The  History  of). 

By  the  late  George  Smith,  Esq.  Edited  by  the  Rev. 
A.  H.  Sayce. 

Greek  Cities  and  Islands  of  Asia  Minor. 

By  the  late  W.  S.  W.  Vaux,  M.A. 

Egypt  from  the  Earliest  Times  to  B.C.  joo. 

By  the  late  S.  Birch,  LL.D. 

Persia  from  the  Earliest  Period  to  the  Arab  Conquest. 

By  the  late  W.  S.  W.,  Vaux,  M.A. 


NORTHUMBERLAND  AVENUE,  CHARING  CROSS,  W.C., 
43,  Queen  Victoria  Street,  E.C. 
BRIGHTON:  135,  North  Street. 


DOES  NOT  CIRCULATE 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 
CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may  be 
renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  reserved. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book  ’ 
overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  warn 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  yc 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  boo*^ 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the  same. 


